I recall someone (name escapes me at the moment) defining WW3 as ignition in 5 flashpoints between belligerent groupings:
- Eastern Africa esp. Sudan, which we all nearly universally ignore
- Israel Iran
- Russia and a neighbor which we know today is Ukraine
- Pakistan Afghanistan India
- China Taiwan Plus Plus
Attributes that distinguish WW3 from previous world wars were IIRC: Contained conflagration, short targeted exchanges, probability of contamination low, material possibility of nuclear escalation. Case in point: North Korea developed nukes without being invaded, and now that they have nukes, other countries are watching and seeing that NK won't be invaded. What lesson do those other countries draw? And what of a world in which many potential belligerents hold nukes? Hiroshima weeps.
I'd like to add an important attribute here: The revolution will be live-streamed, more-or-less. And essentially none of us will know the truth, even the reasons. I predict this fact will not distress many people, such is the state of humanity.
So to the 7 or so decades of stability we and our ancestors enjoyed, here's looking at you, going down me. But Brettonwoods serves the present the least of any time since its creation. Case in point, w.r.t. eastern Africa, the geopolitical bounds of those ~4 countries seems likely meld to a degree. If we are indeed heading into WW3, I expect the world map to be redrawn afterwards, and the only lessons learned is how to win better in future.
And if we are, while disgruntled old geriatrics go at each others throats via their youthful proxies, I greatly prefer the nukes rust in peace.
Reminds me of Blaise Pascal's quote: 'All human evil comes from a single cause, man's inability to sit still in a room.' Aspiration, you gotta take care man, it just might kill ya.
His French is so simple and yet, incredibly beautiful and elegant, in a way that I am not even able to express in words. Only Voltaire compares.
"tout le malheur des hommes vient d’une seule chose, qui est de ne savoir pas demeurer en repos, dans une chambre." -- "All the woe of man comes from one single thing only: not knowing how to remain at rest, in a room"
In the same text, he follows with:
"Le roi est environné de gens qui ne pensent qu’à divertir le roi, et à l’empêcher de penser à lui. Car il est malheureux, tout roi qu’il est, s’il y pense."
"The king is surrounded by people who think only of amusing the king and preventing him from thinking about himself. For he is unhappy, though he be king, if he thinks about it."
> Attributes that distinguish WW3 from previous world wars were IIRC
You're missing the commonalities, what defined world wars: the full might of industrial economies being dedicated to military campaigns.
World War II's theatres' were incoherent–the Axis interests in e.g. China and the Pacific had basically zero stragegic overlap with Europe and North Africa. (The only parties having to consider a unified theatre being the USSR and USA.) But the entire economic surplus of Europe, Asia and North America was basically dedicated to (or extracted towards) making things that were reasonably expected to be destroyed within the year.
The USSR had to carefully keep enough land forces in the Pacific region to deter a Japanese land invasion. (Remember that Japan controlled Manchukuo.) So, yes, the USSR had little involvement, and they had to be very careful to keep it from becoming an active front.
> But the entire economic surplus of Europe, Asia and North America was basically dedicated to (or extracted towards) making things that were reasonably expected to be destroyed within the year.
This is no longer necessary to inflict the catastrophic destruction we're really referring to when talking about a hypothetical WWIII
> Total war is a type of warfare that mobilizes the totality of national resources to sustain war production, blurring the line between military and civilian activities and legitimate attacks on civilian targets as part of a war without restriction as to the combatants, territory or objectives involved.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_war
It does so happen that the two world wars were also total wars.
Well first off I think we were speaking colloquially. But secondly, I think unless certain powers cross some threshold where they’re undeniably engaging “total war”, they’ll use wishy-washy terms like “special military operation” (Russia) or “armed conflict”. That’s also not to mention proxy wars (Syria) or even non-violent acts of aggression against sovereignty (Hong Kong).
In other words, “total war” is a necessary ingredient for a “world war” these days or you’ll have all of these countries claiming they’re not actually at war.
Things have changed since I was a kid. We've gone from saturation bombing and dropping nukes as the big kahuna to being able to do point assassination strikes.
the "world" part of world war is also important. pretty much every economy involved was at least undergoing heavy handed rationing of goods, encouraging people to donate scrap metal, etc.
Here’s hoping they feel the war in Moscow and St Petersburg this year. A bit of rationing wouldn’t hurt them.
More than the war, they’ll feel the peace. More than 100% of the economic growth of the last few years has gone into war production, meaning the civilian economy has shrunk. When the weapons factories are scaled back the economy is going to hurt something fierce. Even Muscovites will notice.
This is why Putin can’t stop fighting. When the fighting stops Russia will face a reckoning. Better to postpone that day hoping that Europe runs out of steam.
That was a very different situation. The USSR was still catching up in industrialisation, and despite its huge losses still had vast reserves of labour in the countryside to tap. It was much more like the process of industrialisation in China that’s seen huge growth there over the last generation. Russia has already industrialised so it doesn’t have a catch-up growth opportunity in the same way. They are much more labour and resource constrained these days.
This labor was, pre-war, a bunch of poor, uneducated serfs (basically slaves). But leading up to WWII, they were transformed into educated, literate, laborers. Also the USSR had invested leading up to WW2 in agriculture outside Ukraine (since the Nazis controlled it).
So while there was less labor, they were far more productive labor thanks to post-revolution, post-WWI measures
So one person says, USSR was still catching up in industrialisation, the other one says, they were far more productive... what is it? The whole argument still feels far-fetched at the very least.
> This labor was, pre-war, a bunch of poor, uneducated serfs (basically slaves).
This is incorrect. Serfdom in Russian empire was abolished in 1861, long before the revolution. Peasant literacy rates, while still poor, had been gradually improving after that.
> Also the USSR had invested leading up to WW2 in agriculture outside Ukraine (since the Nazis controlled it).
What? Not only Ukraine was controlled by Bolsheviks at the start of WW2 its territories have also been extended with parts of Poland and Romania annexed by Soviets between the start of WW2 and the so-called "Great Patriotic" phase of the war.
The USSR's (well, Russia's) growth had begun before WW2, and it was in response to pre-WW1 Russian being severely underdeveloped. There was a ton of room for growth that started before WWII, and it continued unabated.
Basically, Russia up to WW2 had economic growth because it was "catching up" to the West. Industrialization was one place. Literacy was another. There was a huge effort to improve literacy after the Tsar was killed.
Finally, because the Nazis occupied Ukraine during WW2, Russia/the USSR had to develop other places during WW2 just to feed its people, which accelerated growth post-war.
These conditions do not exist today, I don't think. But this isn't my area of expertise. I just know that Russia was a feudalistic shithole until the Tsar was overthrown, and then they worked hard to turn the serfs into educated and literate people, right as they were forced by invasion to economically develop previously overlooked lands.
If you want a very pro-1% take on this, check out Anna Karenina. The "good guy" main character of the novel is a large landowner with a lot of serfs (read: slaves) whom he visits and instructs, based on latest science, how to farm better.
Same thing happened in Japan about a generation or two earlier. There's ar eason tiny, flyover Japan beat Russia in the Russo-Japanese war. Russia was totally backwards, even by "barely industrialized Japan" standards.
Another aspect of a WW3 is that people- pretty much ALL people everywhere- who have nothing to do with the war will find their lives threatened or completely changed by it.
I'm less concerned about nuclear escalation than about biological escalation.
It's quite hard to destroy the human world with nukes: you can only blow up big chunks of it, maybe take out enough power plants and supply chains to drop us into a multi-decade or multi-century dark age, or maybe cause a nuclear winter, although the actual risk of that is unclear.
Whereas a year into a major war a kid in his/her basement can release something that is functionally the end of the human species.
We currently have no real safeguards against this. If we ever have descendants, they'll think we were insane during this time period and they'll be right.
> Whereas a year into a major war a kid in his/her basement can release something that is functionally the end of the human species.
Urgh. "No tests, no prototypes".
Imagine trying to write "Hello, World" but there's no programming language. The compilation cycle takes a week. And you can't actually control where the program runs. And also the storage device will be destroyed by light, air, and other programs on your computer if you don't handle it just right.
It is very very clear when people with no molecular biology experience start talking about biology, because it's clear you all have no idea what any part of the process looks like.
Even the vaunted DNA synthesis machines...only synthesize DNA. Which will be completely destroyed if you so much as breathe at it the wrong way (in fact don't breathe on it at all). And that's like step 2, because step 1 is "grow up a candidate organism in sterile conditions, isolate and characterize it".
That stupid longtermism movement is god damn obsessed with this concept, and it's stunning how clueless they are.
It is so frustrating indeed reading about these wildly exaggerated biological claims.
The whole synthesis pipeline requires so much specific equipment and knowledge that at your kid in his/her basement would actually need a whole lab. By the way, good luck purchasing any consumable on sigma from your basement without accreditation. And I hope you have deep pockets because cell medium is expensive.
"Whereas a year into a major war a kid in his/her basement can release something that is functionally the end of the human species."
How?
If a a virus is so deadly, everything it touches dies soon, it would not spread quickly but die out.
If it is very contagious .. but very, very slow incubation time, so it infects the whole world, before becoming a deadly disease ... then I would say it is far beyond the possibility of a basement workshop to remotely design anything like this. I doubt the professional state labs can create something to wipe out humanity. Dramatically disturb? For sure. Covid was not really deadly in comparison, but already problematic.
This type of research requires experimentation (mostly failures) on extremely complex real-world equipment. Same with the nuclear weapons. AI being able to magically figure it out without experimental grounding is pure and absolute fantasy, used by companies like OpenAI and Anthropic as a justification for monopolizing AI R&D. In a sense it's not surprising this idea comes from rationalism-adjacent folks, as rationalism is mostly about the idea that experimentation is irrelevant and you can infer anything using just logic alone.
> In a sense it's not surprising this idea comes from rationalism-adjacent folks, as rationalism is mostly about the idea that experimentation is irrelevant and you can infer anything using just logic alone.
Yeah IIRC Yudkowski famously said something about a super intelligence could derive the theory of gravity correctly by seeing only three frames of a video depicting an apple falling from a tree. This is the same Less Wrong nonsense, rejecting how vital and irreplaceable experimentation is.
There's an infinite number of explanations for the location of an object in three equally time-spaced instances. Not to mention limitations of the measuring equipment itself.
Okay, I’m inclined to agree there.. but I can’t find the reference now, I also read that the worry is that the complexity required is coming down fast, and while maybe it’s not going to happen in a basement , there could be a small scale lab, not subject to rigorous certifications and checks that offers crisper as a service, and ai could be used to .. just perturb a protein a little bit so it doesn’t trigger some known virus black list, and people could just be ordering things online.
>rationalism is mostly about the idea that experimentation is irrelevant and you can infer anything using just logic alone.
Thanks for putting it the way you did. I didn't knew it was meant be that way, but it sort of confirms my suspicion that people who use the term 'rational' and 'logic' loosely often to dismiss an opposing view never really seek experimental results before having a point of view.
> If a a virus is so deadly, everything it touches dies soon, it would not spread quickly but die out. If it is very contagious .. but very, very slow incubation time, so it infects the whole world, before becoming a deadly disease ..
This is a made up equilibrium that actually does not need to exist in nature.
Viruses and bacteria can in fact be both extremely, extremely contagious and extremely, extremely lethal.
> If a a virus is so deadly, everything it touches dies soon,
Trivially: you actually can have a virus that kills everything it touches not soon. Nothing in biology or chemistry or physics prevents it.
> Viruses and bacteria can in fact be both extremely, extremely contagious and extremely, extremely lethal.
Sure, but those two things would tend to work against it becoming a pandemic— unless it managed those two things but also kept its host healthy enough for long enough before becoming lethal to adequately spread it.
I looked into this once, it depends on how splashy the death is. A virus that made people explode instantly into a fine mist of airborne virus particles could be perfectly adequate for a pandemic (although holding off until help arrives might work even better).
I think we can safely assume that OP was picking a bit of a ridiculous hypothetical example to make a point that it’s possible for something to be deadly and transmissible, although in nature Baculovirus in Caterpillars has a similar mechanism (encourages their host to eat a lot, then climb to the top of a plant so when it turns to ooze it infects others) or cordyceps although both of these aren’t as highly transmissible as they hypothetical explode virus.
But the Black Death mixed high contagion and high mortality as an actual example that shows they aren’t mutually exclusive.
What? That's your second strawman in two comments.
Nobody said you claimed they were harmless. People are taking issue with your assertion that biological agents can be either contagious or lethal (not both), and therefore you discount its risk. This implied tradeoff between contagiousness and lethality simply is not enforced by anything in nature.
The natural emergence of a pathogen that's both highly contagious and highly lethal would be a much rarer event than the natural emergence of one that's either contagious or lethal, but we're talking about engineered pathogens. There is no reason to think that pathogens cannot be deliberately created that are both of those things.
Disagree: Most people live in areas dependent on the supply chain. And when the supply chain gets disrupted they aren't going to go peacefully. And there will be enough mobility that areas that could be self-sufficient get hordes descending on them.
Haven't read it, from what Wikipedia says it sounds quite optimistic. Maybe more realistic back when it was written. I also wonder at the President dying when Air Force One went in--there's good reason it's impossible to jump from civilian airliners, but I would be amazed if Air Force One lacked some means of emergency egress--I'm not talking ejection seats, just a door.
(I don't know too much about nuclear level situations so I can be obviously wrong perhaps but here's my take on it)
> supply chains to drop us into a multi-decade or multi-century dark age,or maybe cause a nuclear winter, although the actual risk of that is unclear.
It's defintiely gonna be a hard life if WW3 ever happens but I think with hydroponics and other advancement, a localized community can still have chances of making sense of things.
It definitely wouldn't be this life where we can eat almost anything but it won't be starvation either, hopefully.
For water, we might have to do reverse osmosis or boiling+condensing to remove radiation.
The biggest issue to me seems energy. Solar energy might be hard to get if nuclear storms are made over any region which I do think iirc can even stay till decades.
Temporarily Windmills and then primarily Hydroenergy is still possible tho but it might take some time to rebuild it if it got destroyed by Nuclear attack so energy to just produce food/water is possible but everything to me feels like it would be strictly rationed. You might have some spare energy for Radio.
I am not sure how food is gonna be distributed, perhaps a new system of work would be designed within community where community gives food and you give what the community might need to get work done.
I feel like though we are gonna slowly improve our Energy situations and as we do that, society can progress back to say a mathematician who can work on theorms which might require computers/energy and just computers in general back.
The quality of life would drop but I would consider tho that the people already in war-struck regions where they don't know if they are gonna be the next target of a messy war have their Quality of life significantly dropped as well.
Now the virus point is something that I don't exist similar to Lukan's comment tho.
Oh? A lot of the old-style genetic coders got dumped on the market cheap. The sort of stuff a microbiologist could use to synthesize smallpox. The technique has been demonstrated, although on a harmless virus. The market has shifted to outsourcing to big companies (who carefully check every order against known dangers) that have much higher capital costs but much lower per-letter costs, but that didn't invalidate the old lab bench techniques.
Covid, ahem, could have been designed in a lab to be an "ideal" bioweapon. As far as viruses go it approximated just about the best bioweapon we could have made with current technology.
- very deadly
- asymptomatic spreading for a couple days
- spreads easy
- no tests/vaccine (early on)
It did kill a lot of people, that's for sure, and caused a huge disruption. But was far less disruptive, imo, than e.g. a nuke in multiple big cities would have been, even if the death toll was similar.
Without a vaccination, it killed 12.9% of people who were infected, killing mostly older people and people who had multiple pathologies (eg. hypertension).
That’s 12.9% of hospital inpatients. All estimates I’ve seen for infection fatality rate — that is, mortality rate among all those infected — place it around 1–2%
It doesn’t kill 13% of people infected, only about 1%. Just look at the number of cases reported compared to the number of deaths. That paper was reporting 13% mortality rate among those admitted to the hospital, not among all those infected.
Smallpox, which the only remaining samples exists in a couple of secure facilities controled by superpowers for use making vaccinations in case they are wrong about their only being a few samples controled by superpowers. Everyone with an ounce of sense knows bioweapons infect both sides and nuetral parties who are no longer neutral once you infect them. It like mustard gas but worse no one other than suicidal terror groups want them and they dont have the facilities equipment samples or knowhow.
>Smallpox, which the only remaining samples exists in a couple of secure facilities controled by superpowers...
I used to believe that, too, until the Russians found a few vials in a random storage cabinet. The fact is we have no idea how many samples exist and where they all are.
Fortunately, we already know how to make a smallpox vaccine.
Not only that, but we have currently functioning distribution networks for pox vaccines. AIUI, the MPox vaccine is just a smallpox vaccine that happens to also work for MPox.
Yep! I count sects of Christianity among those groups and you're right that there are many more just waiting for the right situation and leader to really push them into full blown eschatology.
You mean the same smallpox that ran rampant in a world without vaccines and failed to destroy the world, and was still present while a humans fought a bunch of conventional wars?
Check your thinking. Korea currently has a DMZ dividing it from a war that never really ended and was fought to a stalemate. Their nuclear program didn’t result in military action because they currently have a gun to the head of every South Korean citizen and the backing of a large nuclear neighbour. Those are circumstances you can’t easily recreate elsewhere.
Adding to your point, Seoul is visible from North Korea, and vice-versa, and likely has enough conventional artillery aimed at it that even without nukes an invasion would be Very Bad for the Korean people.
North Korea is in such poor shape that they probably can't maintain much of the equipment much less keep the personnel trained and ready to use it effectively. Not a reason to go to war, but the threat to Soul and SK in general is likely massively overstated.
I think the strategic rational for unification completely swapped about 20 years ago. Up until the early 2000s it was likely in South Korea's, and the US's, interest to find a way to topple NK and unify the peninsula. The two populations had blood ties and common culture. Technologically the gap was growing but still reasonable. It would have been close to an east/west Germany type of situation where unification took effort but ultimately was clearly beneficial. China (and Russia) would have been losers in that unification would have brought a western friendly government even closer to their border. Additionally, NK still had a chance of re-energizing and becoming a real threat to SK.
Now however NK is in such bad shape that unification would be traumatic. South Korea would take on a problem of epic proportions, caring for and bringing a population of that size back into the broader world would be exceptionally costly and definitely not guaranteed to end well, possibly destabilizing SK in the process. Their cultures have grown apart making it hard for them to understand each other. The blood ties are not really there anymore. China and Russia would likely be the winners in that everyone sees NK as crazy and anyone helping them is hurting the world so they could get rid of that baggage. China especially would gain by having rail access to massive shipping assets to deliver goods even cheaper to the world. Finally, the US would loose a major rationale for stationing forces that close to China. They could, rightfully, say that NK isn't a threat and the massive US assets in South Korea and Japan should be drawn down.
It takes more than stockpiles of shells to be able to use it and maintain offensive positions capable of causing harm. From the reports I have seen NK military in Ukraine has been mostly cannon fodder and they are very untrained. That being said, joining the war effort in Ukraine is likely increasing their readiness.
Right... shells age. They blow up in the barrel, things like that. Maybe they even intentionally blow up in the barrel. Not that I would suggest sabotage. There's no way South Korean intelligence could possibly infiltrate North Korea ;)
But even so, if there was a serious threat of war, which is unlikely because China would stop North Korea, the US would place assets in the region and as we got close to a confrontation the US and South Korea (and as things are looking, probably Japan) would begin an aerial and missile bombardment to destroy in place North Korean offensive capabilities. Some would get through of course, perhaps thousands or tens of thousands of South Korean casualties, but in the context of a conventional war North Korea's capabilities would be quickly overwhelmed, at least in my opinion.
But honestly, the current status quo works pretty well for everyone except the people of North Korea, but there's not much we can do. It's a tragedy and the blame for that falls squarely on the Soviet Union and Chinese Communist Party.
... And the US, who razed every building in North Korea and killed more than 10% of the entire population of North Korea (that's entire population, including civilians).
Nope. US was there under a UN banner, and the UN force was winning until China threw manpower into the war. Never mind Soviet support. The blame goes to the communists and them alone. Without them Korea would have been likely unified under what is now the democratic South Korea we know today, but the communists in China couldn’t have a democracy so close to them, so they fought to win and establish the brutal regime that we have today in North Korea.
The only way unification can ever happen will be with Chinese blessing, with or without democracy. That would mean a full exit of US forces from the peninsula, and substantial pandering to the CCP and influence in Seoul. Which isn't that far off a thought honestly - for the most part, Korea was a tributary of China. With rapidly changing demographics and economic heft in both countries, it's even more likely SK will gravitate towards China, to the point that the Chinese will find more persuasion in unification and predictability.
All probably close to correct. I wasn't arguing that unification would, or should, happen (especially by force). I was arguing that the strategic value to China, SK, the west, etc have flipped as well as the actual capabilities of NK are likely vastly overstated.
The joke here is that in 20-50 years I'll bet worst Korea will be begging best Korea to reunify given the absolutely apocalyptic state of TFR south of the 38th parallel.
None of that would stop the current US administration from launching a sneak attack as we've seen several times in other countries. They simply do not care about consequences.
The Vietnam War was the first one to be "televised" on pretty much a daily basis.
While more average US citizens and service members recognized the folly in greater numbers through time because of it.
It was the somewhat more extreme faction of the anti-war crowd that would have been in favor of a revolution of some kind, mainly because Nixon needed to be toppled ASAP without a doubt, they were just the most disruptive when it comes to "whatever it takes."
That's why the old saying was coined, "The revolution will not be televised."
You’re all still misinterpreting the statement it has nothing to do with whatever the current fad is or current tech is. Or what tech was used when the phrase was coined.
> You’re all still misinterpreting the statement it has nothing to do with whatever the current fad is or current tech is. Or what tech was used when the phrase was coined.
Alexander "the Great" (mass murderer) began his conquests at the age of 20 and had conquered the largest empire the world had ever seen at the age of 26.
Hannibal was in his 20s when he lead the Carthagian campaign against Rome.
Napoleon began at 26 and had conquered half of Europe at 35.
War being a business of old men sending young men to die is a modern thing.
That's very backwards when you consider one of the things keeping WW3 from starting for so long was the continued existence of WWII veterans and the citizens of the countries they came from who sacrificed everything.
If we only still had a few hundred million of them still alive, it's the proven most effective thing anybody has ever had to prevent mindless war and/or nuclear war.
And they would all be between 100 and 150 years old by now.
Now that's elderly, and if the human race were to have been blessed with such a miracle it would be so good for them to continue teaching their lessons to those who never had the chance, and are just not mature enough to have any other clue yet.
>Contained conflagration, short targeted exchanges, probability of contamination low, material possibility of nuclear escalation.
That's describing something that's not a world war, though. The Russian invasion of Ukraine is already far worse than what you're describing as WW3. (setting aside nuclear escalation)
I'm surprised such a superstitious reply is so highly-upvoted. There's no "WW3" any more than there is time travel or blue smirfs. It's a hypothetical, but you're talking about it like it's an inevitability. That's just not logically-sound thinking.
When Hitler invaded Poland, it took all of two days for basically all of Europe to realize that they were about to replay the Great War (which we now call WW1).
Of course it took longer for it to blow up into a truly global war (Pearl Harbor etc), but a conflagration across Europe is hardly a "small regional war".
Declaring war is one thing, but if you look at how leaders actually responded it's another (notice the 8 month gap from the declaration of war, into actual fighting). They were still willing to negotiate with Hitler, because most western leadership also wanted the communists to be destroyed and thought Hitler would do just that without attacking them. They were willing to push for this literally until the tanks were invading their streets.
Once Hitler invaded France the "phoney war" turned into a real war. [1]
I'd bet on WW3 not happening in the next 20 years.
US's military power is too strong. Russia is in such a bad shape that it can't even win Ukraine. China never goes to any war; their equipments suck as we saw in the Venezuela occurrence.
Nobody is going to help Iran. China and Russia only see Iran as the enemy of my enemy. Other than that, Chineses and Russians are likely disgusted by Iran's culture e.g. how they treat women. It would be like wtf why are we helping people like this?
The world will continue being policed by US and Europe.
The US has shown very quickly that it is not a spent power.
Compare what they have done recently in Venezuela and Iran to Russia's botching of taking Kiev and the mess ever since.
But to quote Fiona Hill in regards to China, Russia and iran.
--------------------
The Chinese have told the Europeans many times when they've been asked, 'Why are you continuing to support Russia? And why do you want Russia to win?' that, 'Well, if we wanted Russia to win, they would have won.'
Also, if they wanted Russia to lose, Russia would probably have lost.
China is, again, just gauging their support and playing all of this out, gaming it out, really, as to how it affects the United States one way or another.
The same is true of North Korea and Iran, she says: support for Russia has been built on antipathy towards the United States and their own beef with the United States.
> North Korea developed nukes without being invaded
This one always interested me. I assume they were given a lot of the tech from China, and China probably told diplomats that if NK is invaded China might get involved.
First, I don't think this leads to WW3 although I would agree with you that there is a general global tendency towards escalation. Still, I think we can not call this WW3 and I am not 100% certain this is a build-up to WW3 either.
As for North Korea: I think the situation is not solely about North Korea itself but China. China is kind of acting as protective proxy here. I don't see North Korea as primary problem to the USA, but to South Korea and Japan. Both really should get nukes. Taiwan too, though mainland China would probably invade when it thinks Taiwan is about to have nukes; then again China already committed to invasion - this is the whole point of having a dictator like Xi in charge now.
The situation Russia is in is interesting, because even though they are stronger than Ukraine, Ukraine managed to stop or delay Russia, which is a huge feat, even with support. As Putin does not want to stop, and Trump is supporting him (agent Krasnov theory applies), I think this has escalation potential. Putin is killing civilians in Ukraine daily - I think he does that because he already committed to further escalation against all Europeans. So Europeans need a nuclear arsenal, but european politicians are totally lame - see Merz "we will never have nukes". Basically he wants to be abused by Putin here.
> So Europeans need a nuclear arsenal, but european politicians are totally lame
Are France's 240 submarines-launched thermonuclear ballistic missiles not adequate? Despite the need for security, nuclear proliferation is extremely bad. It seems ideal for France continue to maintain their nuclear weapons while the rest of Europe keeps their hands clean.
China won't invade Taiwan because it would destroy their economy and thus their country. Would wreck the entire world economy and turn every country against them.
It's nice nationalistic rhetoric, but there is literally no upside for them.
With you on the other things (we wouldn't be in this position if the Biden admin had had any interest in enforcing laws), but, other than his purely symbolic nomination, what role did Merrick Garland have in the Obama administration that Obama could "let him get away with" anything?
How can you have WW3 when your opponent has the military power equivalent of a butter knife? Instead of wishing for a WW3, I suggest you look at all of the people celebrating in the streets of Iran and even the US.
We are not heading into WW 3. Those old rich men you worry about have to pay a much higher price in cash for their illusions of control. And that reduces what harm and how long wars can run. Keep an eye on what the markets tell everyone on Monday.
> And essentially none of us will know the truth, even the reasons.
Maybe not in the details, but the general geopolitical "axes" (USA/the "West" vs China/Russia/BRICS/"Global South"/etc) have become increasingly obvious in the last years. And so far, most of the recent conflicts fit pretty neatly into that pattern.
Of course there are more things running in parallel, like the general shift to the right, Trump in the US, the specific situation with Israel/Palestine, the emergence of AI, etc.
But I don't see why any of this needs any other "grand secret cause" to explain the current conflicts.
BRICS is Russia wishing that China (much less Brazil, Egypt, Ethiopia, India, Indonesia, South Africa, and the United Arab Emirates) were aligned to its interests.
A more accurate description of the way the world is trending:
US / UK / Europe / Japan / South Korea (still tied by defense, if push really comes to shove) vs Russia vs China vs Non-Aligned Nations (India, Indonesia, Egypt, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Ethiopia, Nigeria, etc.)
And historically (1960s), in a multi-polar world, middle powers are best served by being ambiguously aligned to force advantageous courting by major powers.
If this spreads into a broader conflict, it remains to be seen whether Europe sticks tightly with that block. They certainly won’t align with Russia, but they may be tied so closely to China economically that they can’t afford to be dragged into a direct conflict with them. I could see a situation where they try to remain non—aligned.
Given that we now that to deploy troops to prevent the US from invading Greenland.
I'd agree, it's not a given that the US can count on Europe in a conflict with China.
But probably Europe wouldn't be trading with China or anything.
It's just given the treatment of the US administration, the US probably can't build a volunteer coalition like I Iraq - unless there is an attack on US mainland.
Well, China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea seem to have a (fairly loose) "alliance of convenience" at the moment. "The enemy of my enemy", more or less.
Bartering some e-scooters for oil is hardly an alliance. Other than China, you just have a list of outcast countries on America, Europe, or the Middle East's sh*t list.
Then have a look who is supporting whom with weapons, which militaries are running maneuvers together, who is cooperating - or not cooperating - economically, who is visiting each others' summits, etc.
It's true that many countries are trying to have relationship with both sides or are trying to keep all options open - which is the most reasonable strategy, I think - but there are still two power centers emerging between which those countries are aligning themselves.
Yes. There is US and Israel in one side, and countries trying to maintain relationships with everybody on the other.
The most ridiculous thing about people claiming that BRICS is a military pole is that it has both India and China right there in the name. I don't know if you noticed, but those two almost got in an open war just in the last 6 months.
It's the West vs China with Russia as an also-ran with nukes now unfortunately.
Otherwise you've got some regional issues which is where Iran falls. None of the major players in the region like them, even if they would prefer not to have a conflict they'd be pretty stoked if the volatile regime was gone.
Most of those non-aligned nations are pretty much aligned with the west. Indonesia is absolutely aligned with the USA and the USA it. They are the "Indo" in Indo-Pacific Strategy!
Western liberal democracies and those closely aligned with them is colloquially "the west" now when talking geopolitics.
Obviously it's not geographic as Australia and New Zealand are in the Eastern Hemisphere but would always be assumed to be part of the "west" when discussing geopolitics.
What's missing here is the complex network of alliances that led to WWI. The Iranian regime has alienated virtually everyone, including many of its Muslim neighbors. Nor is the regime part of some overarching international movement, like the communist countries were. Who is going to lift a finger to help Iran?
I'm not supportive of these strikes. Iranians created this government, and if they want to topple it they'll have to be the ones to do it, without foreign intervention.
> I'm not supportive of these strikes. Iranians created this government, and if they want to topple it they'll have to be the ones to do it, without foreign intervention.
Well, foreign intervention kind of worked in Syria, Libya and Iraq after a few backstops, didn't it? All three countries reduced to rubble and virtually eliminated as threats to the US and Israel. Iran is next on the list, now that they're close to obtaing nukes. Let's not kid ourselves, they're not doing it for the Iranians, the're doing it for themselves. Regime change on their own terms, or if that isn't possible, yet another civil war.
If they were meaningful threats to the U.S. it would be legitimate to eliminate them, without regard to Iranian sovereignty. It’s not clear to me that was true.
They're an existential threat to Israel and it also puts China's oil suppply chain under pressure as a bonus. Also, the US does absolutely not want them to get nukes. The regime is at its lowest popularity, so obviously this is the time to try and topple it. The problem is that it creates a power void ripe for terrorist factions to flourish in, as it was the case in Syria and Iraq.
Interestingly Iran had moderately good relations with Russia, to whom they sold drones, and China, to whom they sold oil. But indeed not enough for either to help defend Iran.
With Venezuela, Cuba, and Iran, the US is bottling up Russian and Chinese global influence into smaller regional influence.
Indeed. The Gulf states didn’t want to get involved in this war for fear of upsetting local groups, but after the attacks have now jumped on board.
Iran basically has no state allies in the Middle East. Russia and China don’t seem any more committed than just arms sales.
What potential problem is upsetting the ethnic Apple cart in the region. We know countries like Iraq are a mix of Sunni and Shia with Iran supporting the Shia side quite significantly.
If the main supporting of Shia in the region (Iran) gets wiped out, Shia in varies countries like Iraq may feel much more vulnerable and make political moves preemptively.
I disagree with you on this. The revolution will never be live-streamed because the ability to do so is gated by the same people whom the revolution seeks to overthrow.
What's being live-streamed is the evolution of the status-quo towards growing hostility, violence, wars, and indeed - fascism.
hmmm - but is it really "world war" 3 if it's a bunch of localized conflicts?
I'm a little disappointed that the internet and social media had little impact on universal disclosure about geopolitical matters. My sense is that governments updated their playbooks to both defend against them (e.g. minimize leaking) and leverage them (e.g. bury inconvenient information with propaganda). By comparison, I'm more hopeful about cellphones and bodycams generally reducing excessive police violence and discrimination (emphasis on "reduce").
prediction: the nuclear threat will look quaint compared with disposable million-drone swarms on land and in the air, targeting anything remotely interesting via onboard AI.
The revolution will be notably public, but not live-streamed. It will come as a swift and decisive reaction to a shock-and-awe deployment that will de-stabilize the state apparatus of a big nation outside of the “west”. The movement will be initially localized but it will spread until a perimeter of containment is setup around developed nations. Much more will come after.
I am just befuddled by how much of this violence is directly motivated by religious concerns, both on the side of Iran and on the side of Israel and USA.
I have been reading on the topic of shunyata or emptiness in Mahayana Buddhism, and have been uncomfortably observing just how much of the artifacts we take to be real and substantial in the world are just "made up". They don't have an inherent reality of their own except what we attribute to them. And yet, made up stories can have very real consequences in terms human suffering.
It ought to be possible to cut through the layers of reifications and simply defuse much of the strife in the world. And yet, we continue to inflict misery on each other unnecessarily.
You’re mistaking the packaging for the product. Religion is the language leaders use. Power, territory, oil corridors, regional dominance, and domestic political survival are what they’re actually fighting over.
Tehran isn’t calculating missile ranges based on sutras. Washington doesn’t position carrier groups because of metaphysics. Israel’s security doctrine isn’t a meditation retreat.
Spiritual narratives make clean moral theater for the public. They mobilize bodies. They sanctify retaliation. But the machinery underneath runs on leverage and deterrence, not theology.
Wake up to the real world.
Calling it primarily religious violence feels tidy and tragic in a philosophical way. It’s harder, and more uncomfortable, to admit that it’s strategic violence dressed in symbols people recognize.
Shunyata is a beautiful lens for seeing through ego. It doesn’t dissolve geopolitics.
Territorial expansion and ethnic cleansing boils down to "more resources for me and those most closely related to me genetically." It's difficult to think of a course of action that is more materialist and less abstract.
Israel today is run by a group of religious fundamentalists who do believe it is their "promised" land. And then we have an American ambassador publicly supporting this because he thinks that as a Christian he needs to support Israel's "Biblical rights" over the all of middle-east!
You don't judge a person by what they say, but what they ultimately do - Netanyahu is a right-wing religious fundamentalist as is evident by the kind of right-wing identity politics he practice, his support for the assassination of Israeli (and Palestinian) leaders who didn't support his political ideology and sought peace (Israel PM Netanyahu denies incitement before murder of Rabin - https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/israel-pm-netanyahu-denie... , Will Israel ever have another leader who truly wants peace? - https://forward.com/opinion/780946/yitzhak-rabin-assassinati... ), his attempts to usurp democracy in Israel and become a dictator (If Benjamin Netanyahu and his coalition have their way, my country could deteriorate into a dictatorship. - https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/03/israel-ben... ), his calls for the genocide of the Palestinians in Gaza, and the military sanction for the actual ongoing genocide in Gaza (and now in West Bank). The Likud party he leads emerged from a terrorist organisation that conducted Hamas like massacres of the Palestinains. ( The Terrorist Forefathers of Israel: The Irgun and Lehi - https://dissidentvoice.org/2023/03/the-terrorist-forefathers... ).
If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and does what a duck does, it is a duck.
Netanyahu is not religious. He is, as the parent says, secular. If my cat quacked he's still not a duck.
There is "religion" in the broader sense which can be any set of beliefs but Netanyahu is as secular and logical as can be. He may be overly logical in the sense of advancing his personal agenda (avoiding standing trial) over the interests of his country but he's still very different than the religious crazies in Tehran where logic plays no role and g-d is everything.
I agree that one must be quite illogical and committed to some grander creed to issue a prohibition on nuclear weapons while Israel and USA are doing everything in their very much nuclear power to destroy you.
It's definitely illogical to enrich materials to nuclear grade and invest immense amounts in bunkers with centrifuges while saying you don't mean to have nuclear weapons.
No, those are both rational actions in this case. Iran getting nukes is less dangerous than only Israels current nukes. If both Iran and Israel had nukes, the region might have a chance at peace.
If Iran had nukes it would nuke Israel without any consideration for Israel's nuclear retaliation because in their thinking becoming a martyr in the course of killing the infidels is a good outcome.
The region will have chance at peace once the regime of Iran is removed.
I do this too. I think it is basically simulation out of fear. (modeling because of uncomfortableness with thinking with System 1 fast emotional / System 2 slow rational)
On the contrary, you're mistaking the means with the ends. Yes the regimes and their leaders think about oil corridors and regional proxies. Yes probably a chunk of the apparatchiks don't believe in the spiel and just care about enriching themselves off of corruption and so forth.
But religion, and not pure materialism, is absolutely at the center of the motivation of these people, the leaders and the population alike. It's not just, as you say, a sham that the leaders use to control and mobilise the masses. Religious fanaticism is at the source of the actions and the very existence of the Islamic Republic. Just as religious fanaticism is at the heart of the worst excesses of Zionism and the at-worst-genocidal, at-best-apartheid policies of Israel. It's not just materialism! It's not just prosaic greed! These people are moved by a holy fervour.
Like, this is the central mistake of Marxism, for all its merits in analysing the "capitalist mode of production", it is absolutely false that material conditions and class struggle are the engine of history.
IMHO you're still making it too complicated; knives out GOT, titans of industry..
Sure, but it's even simpler.. The Ayatollah Regime funds regional terrorism. It destabilizes the region, gets people killed, and holds back progress.
Also, they are always seemingly always almost done building a nuke.. Which frankly nobody wants(not even them because they know they'd be obliterated the instant the world thought they actually had one or were about to for-reals have one).
They are BAD FOR BUSINESS both private AND PUBLIC.
As long as the rest of the region was developing eventually their number would be up. The recent uprising and massacre was the signal their number is up. Time to go, honestly signed all their neighbors.
It makes a lot more sense if you picture a bunch of organized, strong and merciless chimps attacking some other chimps to plunder what they have.
Chimps generally agree war is bad and horrific. But some smart, opportunistic and hard-working chimps can create situations that make war possible. Even though the war will only bring losses to most chimps on both sides.
The best political insight in this thread. This is the planet of the apes. If any future historians are reading, some of us primates were aware of the absurdity of the situation, horrified by the senseless violence that erupts again and again, led by sociopathic chimps that somehow managed to organize whole societies against each other and profit from the whole primitive enterprise. What a waste of human potential.
> I am just befuddled by how much of this violence is directly motivated by religious concerns, both on the side of Iran and on the side of Israel and USA.
Can you provide an example of this in 2026?
It seems a little tenable with the ayatollah and Iran. But even here you don’t hear much talk of this being a war in the name of religion anymore. Nowhere near a few years ago and certainly nothing like 9/11 and the Taliban.
And I hear nobody in Israel or America talking that way. Just a war defending people against attackers at the gates.
> And I hear nobody in Israel or America talking that way.
The American ambassador to Israel recently publicly said that Israel has a "biblical right" to the whole of the middle-east! (Watch these two interviews to understand how cleverly, and strongly, Israeli politics is tied up with American evangelical Christianity to keep American polity tied to Israel's existence - https://tuckercarlson.com/tucker-show-fares-abraham-021826 and https://tuckercarlson.com/tucker-show-mike-huckabee-022026 . Both these interviews give you a very insightful picture of how religious fundamentalist Israelis in power are total nutcases, supported by the American Christian fundamentalist fruitcakes).
The source is not Tucker Carlson - it is the person(s) he is interviewing. And if you don't want to listen to the interview, you can pay him to get a transcription of the interview and search through it. (Meanwhile, you may find this equally insightful - The Terrorist Forefathers of Israel: The Irgun and Lehi: https://dissidentvoice.org/2023/03/the-terrorist-forefathers... - supporting my arguments on how Jewish religious fundamentalists have captured power in Israel. Without getting rid of them, peace is not possible in that region as they are the other side of coin that was Hamas in Palestine).
The land promised to the Israelites generally extends from the Nile River in Egypt to the Euphrates River in Iraq/Syria, encompassing modern-day Israel, Palestine, Lebanon, Jordan, and parts of Syria and Saudi Arabia.
If you're a religious Jew, then you believe you have a mandate from God (so an irrefutable right, or even obligation, needing no justification) to settle and rule not only the West Bank but the entire region. So there will always be that motivation, as long as religious Judaism exists in Israel.
That is not the ruling Likud ideology in Israel nor the allied national religious ideology; both refer to Israel+Palestine+Golan as "the Whole Land of Israel".
And in any case, the "most religious" (ie those whose politics are most totally driven by Judaism) bloc in Israel are at best ambivalent about the Israeli state and the settlement enterprise, and actively hostile to military service.
Israeli hostility to Iran is driven by a "defensive" paranoia, not a religious mission.
Israel literally has minted coins with the image of Greater Israel (they claim this is only in reference to some ancient coin designs). The US ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee, has just a few days ago given an interview where he explicitly stated that Israel / the Jewish people has a right to that entire land, from the Euphrates to the Nile. The Israeli opposition leader was then asked about this, and he agreed with the US ambassador that yes, they do have this right, but that of course it must be viewed realistically given security and operational limitations.
Of course it needs to be approached pragmatically. If Israel stated that its number one goal is to rule the entire region, they wouldn't have been as successful as they are.
Also God didn't say when. But he did promise, according to the Book.
This is insane conspiracy theory nonsense, and is also not how actual Jews read the Tanakh.
(Which is also not referred to as "the Book", since it's a collection of books. This may seem like a nitpick, but I think is indicative of you getting your information from non-Jewish conspiracy theorist circles rather than anything related to Jewish theology or culture.)
I agree with you for the most part. But we aren't talking about the ordinary spiritual Jews or Christians or Muslims. We are talking about religious fundamentalists who have a very distorted view of their religion, and mix it with identity politics. Israeli-right religious fundamentalists have captured full power in Israel, and are now even threatening their own democracy. Don't forget that the Likud party that Netanyahu leads was once a terrorist organisation in its previous avatar, that used to do Hamas like massacre of Palestinians and assassinate Israeli leaders that didn't subscribe to their ideology and wanted peace with Palestine. Indeed, if the Israelis were freed of these religious fundamentalist leaders peace is very likely. (The Terrorist Forefathers of Israel: The Irgun and Lehi - https://dissidentvoice.org/2023/03/the-terrorist-forefathers... ) .
Try to resist the temptation to lump me in with the conspiracy theorists. If you can, provide facts. Thanks for your nuance about the Books. I was using the terminology I learned for the Bible (which also consists of multiple Books, but is referred to as the Book), but I'm happy to switch to "scripture".
The Dati Leumi, the Religious Zionists, who constitute the ideological backbone of the settler movement, and have a lot of political influence in Israel, absolutely believe in their duty to govern the biblical land. For many, holding the West Bank is a religious obligation, and they consider the Golan settled and annexed. Religiously, the same principle that justifies them holding Golan applies to these territories.
Here are some recent statements from political leaders:
Bezalel Smotrich (Finance Minister, Religious Zionist party) "it is written that the future of Jerusalem is to expand to Damascus."
Daniella Weiss (prominent settler leader) said in 2024: "We know from the Bible that the real borders of Greater Israel are the Euphrates and the Nile."
Benjamin Netanyahu said he's on a "historic and spiritual mission" and that he is "very" attached to the vision of Greater Israel, which includes Palestinian areas and possibly also places that are part of Jordan, Egypt, Syria, and Lebanon.
Yair Lapid, the secular centrist opposition leader (!). "I don't think I have a dispute on the biblical level about what the original borders of Israel are... I support anything that will allow the Jews a big, vast, strong land."
Mike Huckabee (US Ambassador to Israel) "It would be fine if they took it all."
Huckabee speaks for himself and maybe some Christians.
I would say a lot of Jewish people and Israelis get upset at what you're saying and so maybe our reply will be a bit adversarial. Here's trying to be more factual (I used Gemini to research though I'm personally familiar with these figures as well).
Rabbi Ovadia Yosef (1920–2013): The highly influential former Sephardic Chief Rabbi of Israel. While his political party (Shas) later shifted rightward, Rabbi Yosef issued a landmark religious ruling in the late 1970s stating that Israel is permitted to cede land in exchange for a genuine peace treaty, prioritizing the sanctity of life over holding territory.
Rabbi Menachem Froman (1945–2013): An Orthodox rabbi and resident of a West Bank settlement who famously engaged in direct dialogue with Palestinian leaders, including the PLO and Hamas. He supported the creation of a Palestinian state, arguing that shared religious reverence for the land should be the foundation for peace rather than an obstacle.
Rabbi Michael Melchior: An Orthodox rabbi and former Israeli cabinet minister who leads the Mosaica religious peace initiative. He actively works on "track-two" diplomacy, fostering dialogue between Israeli rabbis and Palestinian imams.
Rabbi Yeshayahu Leibowitz (1903–1994): A highly influential Orthodox Jewish philosopher and scientist. Immediately following the 1967 Six-Day War, he became a vocal opponent of the military occupation of the Palestinian territories, warning that it would corrupt Israeli society and Judaism itself.
Rabbis for Human Rights: An active Israeli organization made up of over a hundred Orthodox, Reform, Conservative, and Reconstructionist rabbis. They physically protect Palestinian farmers, advocate against settler violence, and largely support a two-state solution based on the biblical mandate to protect the vulnerable.
On the question of the applicability of religion: "Does Judaism Mandate a Specific Political Solution?
No. Judaism predates the concept of the modern nation-state, so the religion does not explicitly mandate a "one-state" or "two-state" political framework. Instead, different religious camps emphasize competing core values within Jewish law (Halakha) and scripture to justify their political stances"
There's a lot more to explore and I encourage you do that on your own.
Remember, the claim wasn't that all Israelis believe or support this. The claim was that religious motivations for violence exist. And a stronger claim that I think I have sufficiently defended was, that many influential people have these motivations.
If the weaker claim is that some Israelis have religious motivations or feel like religion supports their position - sure. But big picture religion doesn't play as large as a role for Israelis as it might play for Iran or let's say Hamas or the Houthis. Even with those more religious actors I don't think religion is the only driver, e.g. with Iran this is probably partly just a way to control the population vs. a religious belief held by everyone in the regime (not sure about the ex-supreme leader)
> If you're a religious Jew, then you believe you have a mandate from God (so an irrefutable right, or even obligation, needing no justification) to settle and rule not only the West Bank but the entire region.
Well not really , most Orthodox definitely don't believe this in fact some of them are anti Zionist and the ones who accept Israel's existence definitely do not think Israel needs to expand its borders like that. So no to that.
Israeli have a diverse spectrum of religious denominations. This includes religious, non Orthodox Jews. Dati Leumi (the religious Zionists) are by far the most hawkish. They absolutely believe that the biblical land belongs to the Jewish people. They account for about 15% and are incredibly politically influential.
The Haredim (the ultra-Orthodox) are more complicated, and in general don't want all the promised land (they believe that the state established militarily/politically isn't the "spiritual" state that was promised). But, when it comes to the currently occupied land, they have been shifting right in recent years. They vote in coalition with the nationalist right, and their communities increasingly overlap geographically with settlements.
The Dati Leumi camp isn't as uniform as you portray it. There are many examples (e.g. Avrum Burg, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avraham_Burg ) do not think Israel should be over the entire historical/biblical region ("Eretz Israel Ha-Shlema").
National Religious Party–Religious Zionism is a political party.
It feels unfair and unjustified that you are accusing me of confusing them without substantiating your accusation. I am still open to learn anything that you might want to share with me that you think is important.
So Avrum Burg I mentioned in another comment is historically affiliated with the "Mafdal", the religious party. That religious party, just like religious zionism in general, isn't one uniform block. It has different opinions and it evolves.
I feel like I lost track of the discussion. At some point I thought you were claiming something along the lines that says religious Jews believe they are under an order from God to expand Israel to its maximal biblical geographical area.
If your claim is that the current day Mafdal's political (not necessarily religious) position is that Israel should annex the West Bank and Gaza. Ehm, sure, maybe. I think it's a bit more nuanced even than that but I won't argue on this point.
It's possible I just lost the thread, and if I did I apologize. HN isn't very good at facilitating this sort of discussion. If I mis-stated your position above and am agreeing with the wrong thing I'm sure you'll correct me.
[EDIT: correcting myself a little bit Burg actually ended up as a member of the Labor party in politics, but his politics did originally align with the Mafdal, the party is/was supposed to represent all Zionist Religious people but has obviously diverged a bit from that)
> At some point I thought you were claiming something along the lines that says religious Jews believe they are under an order from God to expand Israel to its maximal biblical geographical area.
I just meant that there's a part of the religious spectrum prone to that interpretation, and it mixes very well with nationalism, and expansionism. And that it isn't a meaningless fringe, but has a significant political representation. What I wrote was a reasonable way the scripture can be interpreted by someone who believes it's a true word of God.
If I'm wrong, and e.g. the Miflaga Datit Leumit party explicitly rejects this kind of intepretation then I stand corrected, but judging by what its leader says publicly this isn't the case...
Unlike Iran what the leader says isn't some ultimate mandate to the followers. Party leaders, and members, come and go and their platforms changes over time.
Smotrich, e.g., says and does lot of things. Some of them resonate with some members of his party, others don't.
I would push back on the idea of expansionism. I don't think that's a mainstream view in the party at all. The party does support annexing the West Bank and Gaza which to be honest is the only workable solution anyways regardless of where you're coming from and really the best outcome for Palestinians as well if they become full Israeli citizens.
Well you gave it more nuance here than in your original message that determined "If you're a religious Jew...".
Bennet is dati leumi and represents a big chunk of the mainstream/modern dati leumis. Any signs he's after conquering Saudi Arabai and Egypt ? Not really. Even Smotrich "only" wants the West Bank.
Thanks for this information, I'd like to offer something in return.
Only certain Hasidic groups oppose Israel, including Satmar Hasidim (over 100k followers), and Neturei Karta (fringe, only about 1k supporters). That's less than millions, and a minority within the Hasidic world.
Theologically, they oppose it based on an interpretation a Talmudic passage saying that establishment of Israel has to happen after the coming of the Messiah.
Additionally, there are a lot different denominations of Jews within Israel, some of whom have more pragmatic views. But a significant, politically influential minority believes in their duty to govern all biblical land.
A belief that Jews were given lands millennia ago does not imply a justification, let alone an obligation, to violently reconquer those lands today.
Consider that we haven't had a Sanhedrin (supreme Jewish council) for a while, which makes a bunch of Jewish law unenforceable. While there's some fringe interest in reinstituting the classical system, there's no scripture that would clearly obligate Jews to do so. Most just accept that times have changed.
Similarly while there's some fringe interest in recapturing all historic Jewish lands, there's no scripture that would clearly obligate Jews to do so. Most just accept that times have changed.
You can find a few weird individuals anywhere if you look hard enough, but portraying "religious Jews" broadly as aspiring to conquer the whole Middle East is way off base.
> If you're a religious Jew, then you believe you have a mandate from God (so an irrefutable right, or even obligation, needing no justification) to settle and rule not only the West Bank but the entire region. So there will always be that motivation, as long as religious Judaism exists in Israel.
I would say this is generally false.
There are many religious Jews who believe there should be no state of Israel until the Messiah comes. Judaism is very open to interpretations and certainly within the question of modern state politics doesn't have as much to say as you seem to think it does.
There are many different Rabbis in Israel with different political opinions and generally their followers will tend to hold similar beliefs. There are right wing Rabbis and left wing Rabbis, it's not uniform at all. During the Oslo peace process there were many religious people supporting and many opposing, pretty much the same as secular.
What is true is that some Israelis view their right to the land in the context of the biblical promise God made our people. That is not the same thing. Funny enough I'd say more Christians believe the literal promise and it's implication on current day politics than Jews. It's also true that religious people these days tend to be more right leaning politically. But the religion isn't mandating those world views it just that they can align.
Imagine making such a blanket claim of religious Muslims. It is wild how people can assign with authority jews motivations/behaviors. If you make the same claims of conquest but with regards to Muslims, it wouldn't be acceptable. Should we allow such claims to understand Muslims behaviors, or have you stepped over a line in your defining religious Jews?
I feel like this sort of symbolic planning means you don't even need to leak to the wrong Signal chat group to telegraph your attack? Especially when enemy warships have already been hovering for a few days...
"Citing the book of Genesis, Carlson asked whether the modern state of Israel had a right to the lands promised in the Bible by God to Abraham, stretching from the Euphrates River to the Nile, covering much of the Middle East. In response, Huckabee said: “It would be fine if they took it all. But I don’t think that’s what we’re talking about here today.”
It's not said in polite company, but Israeli concerns are racial, not religious. If you meet a Jewish zionist, then you've also met an athiest. An explanation of Christian Zionism deserves much longer discussion than can be made here, but how and why such an obvious contradiction to Jesus' ministry gained popularity is something worth studying.
Once you realize the gospels and the epistles disagree, it becomes a lot easier to understand. Christianity is the practice of cognitive dissonance. The bible, due to the nature, has a lot of mixed messaging.
Imagine, for example, you wanted to write the religion of Liberalism, so you collect the works of all the major thinkers on the subject of liberalism into one book. Now imagine someone gets the bad idea that all these authors must actually have a unified view on what liberalism is, means, and implies. You'll end up seeing that person teach a form of liberalism that's easily countered with other passages from their book and they'll mostly just wave it away because they have their passages and the others are simply you misinterpreting an "obvious" metaphor.
That is christianity in a nutshell, just replace liberalism with god. That's why there are so many sects. Because it's just too easy to yell "Context context context!" when a difficult passage comes up you don't agree with and use "spiritual" as the excuse for why you don't actually have to follow that passage.
1. Many Israeli Jewish Zionists are either "traditional" (religious but not that much) or Religious Zionist, and they are generally part of the right wing coalition. Actual atheists tend to be in the Israeli (still-Zionist) left.
2. The Zionist conception of Jewish identity is not "racial" in the American sense. The most obvious sense in which this is true is that it considers converts and their descendants full members of the nation. Probably the closest analogies are some Native American nations' identities or Armenian nationalism.
But you're directionally correct - Zionism is not a particularly religious ideology within the Jewish world, and outside of the Religious Zionist minority the political class is (openly!) on the less observant end even on the right.
When it comes to battles of religion, Alan watts said it best.
"Since opposed principles, or ideologies, are irreconcilable, wars fought over principle will be wars of mutual annihilation. But wars fought for simple greed will be far less destructive, because the aggressor will be careful not to destroy what he is fighting to capture. Reasonable–that is, human–men will always be capable of compromise, but men who have dehumanized themselves by becoming the blind worshipers of an idea or an ideal are fanatics whose devotion to abstractions makes them the enemies of life."
It is rare to find a comment on shunyata on HN. I wanted to deepen the discussion on that, instead of move into geopolitics or the justification of status quo reality. I think youre very correct that war is unnecessary, if only we realize the illusory nature of many of the things we desire or hate.
Shunyata means everything is empty. Empty of what? Empty of inherent, independent existence. That means everything is connected -- not only connected, but mostly illusory, sitting on top of a reality that cannot be understood in terms of objects, processes, distinctions, or boundaries between objects. Sometimes, this connection takes on strange forms.
For example: The horrible reality of war was a direct cause for your compassionate unease. I.e. war acted as a cause for compassion. This is strange. How do we reconcile this disturbing relationship, where a compassionate response is directly the child of war? In other words, horrific war has given rise to compassion, and this is a causal relationship, in the same way that a child arises from a mother. So, violence and love can arise from each other? What? Are they not supposed to be opposites?
The next step is a bit more provocative. Shunyata seems to imply that, since everything lacks inherent and independence existence, then suffering is not a part of the human condition. Instead, it is a mental construct. It isn't that the suffering of humanity does not exist; it's that it is constructed by the mind.
Deleuze and Guattari offers an interesting viewpoint on this. There are various intensities that do arise naturally. Injury, for example, is an intensity. But, suffering itself is not "really-real" unless we reify the intensities as suffering. And eliminating suffering partially involves the non-reification of intensities into suffering.
Obviously, easier said than done.
Anyway I'll leave it there. It's probably quite easy to destroy my points here, so I would appreciate it if people steelmanned my comment instead of strawmanning it. Shunyata is a genuinely useful discussion from a mental health and human flourishing standpoint. And has some very interesting and rigorous logic behind it. (see Mulamadhyamakakarika by Nagarjuna)
Complexity can lead to "more is different" outcomes at higher strata. I would not say reified concepts are "made up" as they can have very real effects on both higher and lower strata.
The fallacy of reification is treating something emergent as a thing-unto-itself rather than a process or interaction born from constituents at a lower stratum. A reified thing can be recognized and changed for this reason. A mental concept needs only a change of mind to mutate, or to be destroyed.
Religion may well prove to be a reification that is destroyed once it is recognized as such. But I do believe that you cannot reduce that which is real and not real to only those things that have physical antecedents at lower strata, as we see emergent phenomena in the physical world as well.
Examples abound; but for good and ill, the language-using ape seems to be a religious animal, having co-evolved with mythological memeplexes.
There's the old salt from DFW, "one can't choose whether to worship, only what to worship". Less apologetics, perhaps, than a realmythos (akin to realpolitik).
Nature abhors a vacuum, and something inevitably fills the void: the "god-shaped hole" in individuals, and the game-theoretic basin of attraction, the actual realpolitik of loyalty-signaling, load-bearing fictions which bind an "imagined community". (The first might be manageable, but the second is a doozy: a faith which could not be more explicitly anarcho-pacifist mutated into justification for brutally violent hierarchies of domination and exploitation. So it goes.)
And the fact you feel a hole that religion fills for you doesn’t mean it’s there in everyone. Enforced religious participation is never proof that religion is what people crave.
I don't disagree. I trimmed "religious and mythological memeplexes" down to avoid repetition. (Also worth considering: de-facto religious behaviors need not be supernatural or "mythological"; you can substitute your own examples of political ideologies that are difficult to distinguish from religions in practice.)
It is obviously a deeply complicated and complex phenomenon. Even the Dennett/Dawkins model of selfish replicators aren't necessarily sufficient, in addition to my claim that the relationship between genes and memes can sometimes be mutually symbiotic (and I'm aware of the great many counter-examples).
To be clear, I don't hold to a particular faith myself (and I've spent time at both ends of the spectrum). I suspect that the so-called "god-shaped hole" is one of many characteristics that varies in the human animal, not unlike those who have a mind's eye and those who don't, or those who hear their thoughts audibly and those who don't.
> Enforced religious participation is never proof that religion is what people crave.
While what people crave obviously varies, I think most people do crave something like meaning and community (or flipping it around: selection pressures seem to have selected for meaning and community, presumably at least in part from a green-beard effect [0]). While those can exist independently of faith, we can empirically observe that they tend to overlap quite a lot (again, for good and ill).
While I'd agree with you regarding illiberal theocracies and religious totalitarianism, I'd problematize your framing in two ways: (a) "forced" implies that someone is doing the forcing, meaning presumably someone craves it, or is at least willing to play along [1]; but more pertinently, (b) there is a middle ground between the extremes of "explicit individual choice", and "forced participation": norms, culture, emulation, etc.
No one "forces" anyone in the business world to wear suits, or use LinkedIn jargon; but the incentives are in favor of doing so (and against not doing so), so people play along: some cynically, some internalizing norms sincerely. If we hit a magic History Randomizer Button that shuffled historical contingencies, I don't think we'd have an absence of those norms, but other norms with different details. And I suspect we'd see different churches and myths and holy books, not an absence of them.
To reiterate, I'm just talking Darwinian functionality here, not whether religion is good or bad in a normative sense. If the niche exists, "nature finds a way".
Religious concerns are, IMHO, always a facade for the underlying economic/territorial/geopolitical reasons. These religious facades help sell the war effort: get young men to enlist and fight to the death for "preserving their identity". And "muh freedom" is just as much a religious motivation to me (unsubstantiated, indoctrinated, unthreatened).
There is also point of view that remembers that always right behind US military there is a team building next oil pipeline.
US tried to used China as cheap labor, lost a lot of intelligence and now - look at how much oil Iran has and who is it exporting to and what is the percentage at the destination.
The numbers add up and only the funny (?) thing is - China is (going to) be most eco country, because they already use nuclear power a lot and were forced to work on that.
What a time to be alive, again!
And please, downvote me, comment that US is fighting for some country’s civilians freedom. It’s fun too.
It makes you wonder about religion's true purpose. It's a really convenient framework for creating peoples/regions that hate each other, isn't it, as history has shown for millenia
> I am just befuddled by how much of this violence is directly motivated by religious concerns, both on the side of Iran and on the side of Israel and USA.
This just isn't true. Religion is never the reason for these conflicts. It's the excuse. It's how that conflict is sold to the rest of the world. It's how civilians are manipulated into dying in a conflict.
The source of these conflicts is always material. Always.
Reagan's Secretary of State, General Alexander Haig once said [1]:
> Israel is the largest American aircraft carrier in the world that cannot be sunk, does not carry even one American soldier, and is located in a critical region for American national security.
In 1986, then Senator and future president Joe Biden said [2]:
> [Israel] is the best $3 billion ivnestment we make. Were there not an Israel, the United States of America would have to an invent an Israel to protect her interest in the region.
Much of US Middle East polciy was aimed to sabotaging and undermining Pan-Arab Nationalism (particularly under then Egyptian President Nasser) [3].
Nothing about any of this has anything to do with faith. In this case it's about oil.
Whatever crimes you think Iran might've done, I'll stack up the US crimes against Iran and it won't even be close, including:
1. Iran was a liberal democracy that the US deposed in 1953 at the behest of the British because BP didn't want to have to pay higher royalties, ultimately leading Mossadegh wanting to "nationalize" their own oil;
2. In 1978, then US-puppet Saddam Hussein expelled Khomenei from Iraq. This was about the time the US realized that Iran was likely lost. it is believed that the reason for this was that a fundamentalist regime was preferred to a Communist one (which was otherwise the likely outcome) as the US didn't want Iran to fall into the Soviet sphere of influence. So all this pearl-clutching about the current regime rings hollow when you realize the US helped created it;
3. As punishment for the Revolution, the US supplied weapons to Iraq and fueled the Iran-Iraq war for almost a decade that killed over a million people; and
4. Crippling economic sanctions, which is a fancy way of saying "starving people and denying them medical care", for daring not to be a US puppet.
If you point me to any conflict you think is based on faith, I'll show you the material interests behind it.
> The source of these conflicts is always material. Always.
Since the beginning of the Green Revolution¹, no. The source of these conflicts are always ideological. Always. Ideology may come through religion or some other medium.
Countries don't go occupying land because they need crops or slaves anymore. Material is always cheaper to buy than to get from an occupation. The desire to annex some land is always for somebody's pet project, it doesn't make economic sense.
1 - In a very wide sense. Agriculture stopped being the bottleneck for human populations at some point in the 18th or early 19th centuries.
Religion is a subset of ideology, and both are a mechanism to recruit labor to fight and not the reason for conflict. Material isn't cheaper to buy, the "owner" of the material has all of the leverage - lock them in like a SaaS contract and them jump the price up, and the buyer can't do anything. Crops and slaves are no longer valuable as port worthy coast and natural resource deposits, but the fight is still over land and power.
I think the praise of the strategic value to US military interests are rationalizations and poor ones at that. The Gulf monarchies are allies in a meaningful sense and provide useful material support to the United States. Our “ally“ on the other hand was recently caught running a child prostitution ring and money laundering operation to control business and political leaders in the United States. Kidnapping children and removing their teeth so they can’t bite their rapists for political leverage is going to be remembered by future generations with the same horror and disgust as medieval torture and 20th century concentration camps.
Hey there I'm Israeli and I'm quite politically informed and moderately religiously educated and I have never heard of this "curse of the eighth decade" thing you've heard of.
You probably know a lot more than me but my understanding is there have been two previous Jewish states in the Levant, the ancient Kingdom of Israel ruled by King David and then the Hasmonean dynasty during the Second Temple period.
Both of those states lasted for around 80 years before collapsing. My (probably worthless) 2c is there's nothing magical or surprising about that, a lot of people have pointed out that political entities often last around the length of a human life before change occurs.
The most prominent current theory is the Strauss–Howe "fourth turning" one but the idea goes back further than that
This is not a common narrative in Israeli discourse (especially since in that discourse David's kingdom is considered to have continued in the southern Kingdom of Judah, and to have lasted several centuries).
It is difficult to instigate regime change for democratically elected governments.
Iran has an unelected supreme leader.
Israel has a large portion of its population completely disenfranchised.
The US has a generally democratically elected government.
If one of these governments is going to fall during military instabilities, it would most likely be Iran. The US will have significant regime change in November if polling holds.
> Israel has a large portion of its population completely disenfranchised.
Care to elaborate? As far as I know, this is false. All Israeli citizens 18 or older can vote; there are no voting restrictions based on race, religion, gender or property; prisoners can vote (unlike in many US states for example); permanent residents who are not citizens cannot vote in national elections but may vote in municipal elections (not the case in the US). National turnout ranges between 65% and 75%.
Minorities are well represented: Arab and Druze citizens vote and have representation in the Knesset.
I struggle to find any dimension in which your statement is correct.
Very obviously, I’m referring to the Palestinians in the “Palestinian Territories” being de facto governed by Israel and are not allowed to vote in Israeli elections.
There is nothing obvious about that statement. In fact it's catastrophically wrong.
Palestinians in Gaza have been governed by Hamas since 2006. Before that, they had been governed by the Palestinian Authority (Fatah) since 1994.
Palestinians in Judea and Samaria ("West bank") have been governed by the Palestinian Authority continuously since 1994, with the exception of Area C.
Palestinians who live there are NOT "de facto governed" by Israel. They pay taxes to the Palestinian Authority; receive birth certificates, IDs, business licenses and social security payments from the P.A.; Go to schools, hospitals, courts, police stations and jails run by the P.A. And most importantly, they vote in elections run by the P.A. To say that they are "de facto governed" by Israel is ridiculous, and shows a lack of basic understanding of Israel and Palestine, and the conflict between them.
"The exception of Area C" is doing a lot of work in this argument. That's 61% of the territory of the West Bank ("Judea and Samaria") (those scare quotes also doing a lot of work).
To counter your list of things that the PA does de facto control, I will add: who controls the criminal court system? The checkpoints which lead to the outside world? The airspace? The ability to import and export goods? The roads? The territorial contiguity of Areas A and B? The decisions on building new settlements?
Aside from the municipal things you mentioned, which in most places in the world are controlled by subnational entities, Israel is in de facto control of the lives and futures of all 15 million people "from the river to the sea", roughly half of them Jews and half of them Arabs, while only one of those groups has what anyone in the West could consider to be a normal existence.
> "The exception of Area C" is doing a lot of work in this argument. That's 61% of the territory of the West Bank
Area C is less than 10% of the Palestinian population in the West Bank, 6% of Palestinian population if you count Gaza. Interesting that you chose to focus on territory! Last I checked, square kilometers do not vote, people do.
In any case, you are right that Area C is more complicated, since it is controlled by Israel and there are Palestinians who live there.
However, Palestinians living in area C can also vote in Palestinian elections. So although it is true that they live in a territory governed by Israel (unlike the other 94% of Palestinians), it remains false that they are a "large part of the Israeli population that is disenfranchised" (the original statement).
> ("Judea and Samaria") (those scare quotes also doing a lot of work).
Obviously the choice of name for this region reflects a political preference. But that works both ways. I prefer to call it Judea and Samaria because that's what it was called until 1948, when Jordan invaded and annexed it. "West bank" is a relic of Jordanian occupation, chosen by King Abdullah to absorb the region into his kingdom, not just politically but semantically. Jordan hasn't controlled the region in 60 years - longer than the occupation itself. It seems reasonable to stop calling it by its colonial Jordan name.
You seem to take particular issue with my use of the term "Judea and Samaria". That is also a political preference. Do you care to explain it the same way I explained mine?
> To counter your list of things that the PA does de facto control, I will add: who controls the criminal court system?
In areas A and B, the Palestinian Authority.
> The checkpoints which lead to the outside world?
On the Israeli side: Israel. On the Jordanian side: Jordan.
> The airspace?
Israel
> The ability to import and export goods?
The Palestinian Authority, but subject to stringent security control by Israel.
> The roads?
In Areas A and B: the Palestinian Authority.
> The territorial contiguity of Areas A and B?
That was jointly defined by the bilateral agreement at Oslo. So, both sides agreed on that.
> The decisions on building new settlements?
In area C: Israel.
In areas A and B: there are no settlements (Jews are not allowed to live there).
> Israel is in de facto control of the lives and futures of all 15 million people "from the river to the sea"
We're straying from the original topic of disenfranchisement... I will just say that, in my opinion, your view is simplistic and manichean. The closest we ever got to a resolution of the conflict, in 1994, was with a bilateral agreement. Neither side is fully in control of the outcome. Denying that Palestinians, too, have responsibilities and agency, is the surest way to perpetuate this conflict.
To wit, if you get to vote for the HOA board but not for the government that can override every decision the HOA makes, are you meaningfully enfranchised?
They're arguing that due to the failure/stalling of the two-state solution, the PA is effectively not a national government. It administers local services, like policing, courts, infrastructure. But it doesn't control borders, tarrifs and duties, or airspace. The Israeli military operates a parallel legal system that can detain and prosecute them, all under a legal framework that they have no vote or say in. I think its fair to call this a kind of disenfranchisement?
I understand where you're coming from, but this is a flawed analogy.
The legal framework for the Palestinian Authority's existence is a bilateral treaty. Israel did not unilaterally create this flawed administrative entity: it was jointly created with the PLO, as an interim step towards a fully sovereign Palestinian state. The negotiations that followed were also bilateral. These negotiations failed, leaving both sides with an incomplete interim solution. As a result Palestinians are neither citizens of Israel, nor of a wholly sovereign state. They are stateless, that is undeniable. But the reason they are stateless is not that they "have no vote or say". They had a say at the negotiation table in Oslo. They also had a say in Camp David in 2000, when Yasser Arafat walked away from a deal that would have given him a state with its capital in Jerusalem, and started the second intifada instead. They had a say in 2005 when they elected Abbas over reformist alternatives. They had a say in 2006 when they elected Hamas in Gaza. And they have a say now, as Abbas maintains the "pay to slay" program that rewards attacks against Israeli citizens with welfare payments to the attacker's families. There's a reason Israel insisted on overriding security control in the interim state. They couldn't trust the PLO, the very group that killed countless Israeli civilians in shootings, stabbings and bombings, to become the sole guardians of Israeli safety overnight. In Oslo the Palestinian Authority accepted the responsibility to prevent terrorist attacks against Israel. They are free to deliver on that commitment anytime.
My issue with your framing ("the PA is like an HOA"), the parent comment's framing ("Israel solely controls the fate of Palestinians"), and the original comment that started this whole debate ("Palestinians are a disenfranchised part of Israeli population"), is that it strips Palestinians of agency and shared responsibility. It's annoying when you do it. But it's tragic when Palestinians do it to themselves. By perpetuating this myth that they are helpless, blameless victims of external forces, they are making internal reform impossible ("what is there to reform? All our problems are Israel's fault") and any resolution to the conflict impossible ("we are the rebels, Israel is the empire. The only resolution is to blow up the death star").
To tie this back to the original topic of disenfranchisement: even in the flawed interim state created in Oslo, Palestinians have had the opportunity to vote. Not in a state, but in an institution created specifically to chart a path to a state. They elected a president, who then proceeded to cancel presidential elections (the last one was in 2005). They elected a legislative body, who started a civil war and established one of the most violent theocracies in the world. None of this was Israel's doing. To the extent that Palestinians are disenfranchised - denied the opportunity to vote - it is by their own leaders. If anything, it makes me glad Palestine isn't a full-blown state: with leaders like that, the more limits to their power, the better.
I shouldn’t even have to argue here. Access to the West Bank is controlled by Israel. That is de facto governance.
At best the Palestinian Territories have “quasi-governmental control.” I’m saying this as someone who isn’t particularly pro-Palestine. Pretending that Israel isn’t de facto the government of the Palestinian Territories is an unserious position.
If you don't like to argue, may I suggest not making controversial claims on controversial topics, in a place that encourages constructive debate?
> Access to the West Bank is controlled by Israel.
That is mostly true. On the border with Jordan it is jointly controlled by Jordan and Israel (like most international borders).
> Pretending that Israel isn’t de facto the government of the Palestinian Territories is an unserious position
I already explained in great detail the specific ways in which the Palestinian Territories are, in fact, governed by the Palestinian Authority. Taxation, elections, justice, police, education, healthcare, roads, sewers, business regulation, population register...
So far your counter-argument is that Israel controls the border... and therefore Palestinians should vote in Israeli elections? Should they also vote in Palestinian ejections? Or should the P.A. simply stop to exist? What point are you even making exactly?
Calling me "unserious" doesn't make you automatically "serious", or right.
I don't think the terms de facto and de jure mean what you think they mean. At this point it appears you're just throwing fancy words at me, and are not able to make a coherent point or meaningfully address mine. So, let's just agree to disagree.
The person you're responding to said they were unable to vote in Israeli elections. You said "no, they're able to, uhh, not vote in the case of those under Hamas and they're able to vote in elections held by the Palestinian authority in the case of those in the west bank." I don't know a ton about this, but I don't believe the Palestinian authority elections are the same as the Israeli elections. As I understand it, the right to vote is gated behind a citizenship process that is restrictive enough to generally prevent Palestinians from obtaining it.
> The person you're responding to said they were unable to vote in Israeli elections.
They said Palestinians are "a large portion of the Israeli population [that] is disenfranchised". That is a wrong statement. Palestinians are not part of the Israeli population and there is no expectation (on either side) that they would participate in Israeli elections. That issue has been largely settled by the Oslo framework in 1994.
> As I understand it, the right to vote is gated behind a citizenship process that is restrictive enough to generally prevent Palestinians from obtaining it.
I'm not sure which elections you mean.
- Israeli elections are for Israeli citizens. The 20% of Israelis who are Arab (sometimes loosely referred to as "Palestinians" as a loose synonym for "Arab living in former mandatory Palestine") can participate normally
- Palestinians in the West Bank vote in Palestinian elections. ' not aware of any citizenship-related restrictions there. Possible issues might be: logistics of getting to polls because of Israeli checkpoints; or simply the absence of elections (PA hasn't held a national election since 2006, although there are municipal elections).
- Specifically in East Jerusalem, on which Israeli claims sovereignty, Palestinians are classified as permanent residents of Israel. They may apply fot Israeli citizenship but that's probably a difficult process. As permanent residents they can vote in Israeli municipal elections, and as Palestinians they can vote in Palestinian national elections. But not being Israeli citizens they cannot vote in Israeli national elections. Perhaps that is what you're referring to?
The peace process that Oslo initiated is certainly dead. But Oslo itself, as the last bilateral agreement between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, is de facto the law of the land, even though it was meant as an interim agreement. For better or worse...
This is like saying Australians are disenfranchised because they can't vote in New Zealand elections. They're not governed by Israel in any meaningful way.
It would be like if Native American tribes could not vote in American elections, but the federal government still controlled the ability for those nations to access the external world.
Correction: It is like saying Australians can't vote in general elections after being pushed out of 75% of the territory, except a small percentage who are tolerated in the major land since they won't make a difference.
The ostracized Aussies then can vote for their own leaders but will be blamed if they vote for the wrong ones and embargoed, regularly shot and even bombed from time to time to remind them who the place belongs to.
Palestinians living in the Palestinian Territories are not Israeli citizens and cannot vote. I would say the Palestinian Territories are occupied, not part of Israel (though Bibi definitely has a sizable camp in his government that would love to make it so).
Do we expect occupied peoples to have a vote? sort of depends how you define democracy. Under an American interpretation (no taxation without representation, 1 person 1 vote) there’s a good argument that you should count occupied peoples.
> Under an American interpretation (no taxation without representation, 1 person 1 vote) there’s a good argument that you should count occupied peoples.
Palestinians are not taxed by Israel. They are taxed by the Palestinian Authority, and participate in Palestinian elections. So they do have representation - just not in Israel.
If we are talking about Democracy—which is where I started this—then yes. If occupied peoples don’t have representation in the government occupying them, yes, that’s very obviously less democratic than if they did. Quite literally by definition. This shouldn’t be controversial.
How many times were they offered statehood. How many times did they attack Israel? Why is there a wall? You know what happened when the wall went up and security blockades went in? The number of Palestinian suicide bombings dropped. Palestinians have decades of history of terrorism. They could have been like Singapore. But they chose terrorism.
Palestinians already have statehood: Palestine is a state, just like israel is a state. They are exactly equal in value and in their right to exist free from coercion by the other.
The issue is that israel is attacking, invading, occupying, annexing, and genociding the state of Palestine.
The US is a republic with some democratic institutions, but the economists index isn’t some platonic indicator that gets to define who’s a good government and who isn’t. Several of its higher ranking countries have outright banned extremely popular political parties in recent years.
And both have a similarly executive-centric form of government where the president and the majority party hold a disproportionate amount of power. Although the US is even worse than France on this regard as far as I know.
I think it makes sense that both are categorised as flawed.
If you want to talk about rhetoric look at the idea of a “democracy index” - a score suggesting a scientific approach for determining how good/free a nation is.
We can play the “whose saying it game”, or look at the arguments. Democracy is rule by the lowest - and it’s easily manipulated by the popular. Buying votes, focus on the carnal, and immediate is a clear sign of democracy in decline.
I was more wondering about these emperors, kings, barbarians, and those in their influence who were casting aspersions at Athens. Why are we giving these historically incorrect people the time of day?
Once again, looking at incentives can help you find hidden motivations. But at some point you have to look at the arguments at see if they make sense or not.
The US founders didn’t believe in democracy. More people do today, mostly out of a sense that it’s moral obligation. Very few actually will argue it leads to better government outcomes.
The US and Israel are elected governments, but that should certainly not presuppose democratic. The Roman Republic was, for example, fully elected but simultaneously it was intentionally autocratic to the elite. That is why it fell to a dictatorship which then increased the liberty and standards of the people.
Democracy is the directness by which social participation equates to governance. The US is a federal republic with only two parties each bound by the same hostile funding system that benefits political contributions over the vote. That is far from democratic.
Democracy and Republic both mean “normal people are in charge of government” and are in opposition to monarchy. The distinction you are referring to was a contrived interpretation in the federalist papers to make a point.
No. Democracy and republic are fundamentally different. You want to equivocate them because there is a vote. They have always been different going back to the Ancient Greeks and Romans who each invented those terms.
Had. Israel probably has a list with the next 3 or 4 in line to replace Khamenei and is currently working towards eliminating them, like they did with the Hezbollah.
Regime change could also be triggered through impeachment or PM losing support and government coalition getting dissolved in the case of Israel.
The Israeli government has de facto control of large sections of the Palestinian Territories. The people in those territories, however cannot participate in the elections of that government.
The distinction being de jure and de facto control is something worth debating, but it’s trivially true that Israel controls large swaths of territory where people are not eligible to participate in that government.
In that order, in the context of that region. Then consider their meanings in the context of (say) Canada. Consider how conventional applications of those terms are different for the two.
> The US mostly isn't interested in butchering it's own citizens, slavery is the approach we went with À la the U.S. prison system.
I hate to break it to you, but US prisons, while maybe worse than Scandinavian ones, are on par with France, and way better than like 70% of the world.
This is not a competition who has it worse. You can acknowledge terrible things that IR does without trying to portray yourself as a victim.
You are conflating issues. As a foregone conclusion the U.S. bombing the sovereign citizens of Iran is acceptable to you, only afterwards are you and other's justifying this by cherry picking recent events. If Iran hadn't just killed protesters, it'd be because they were working on nukes, or because they've launched missiles across borders.
You blind yourself to the dozens of countries around the world doing these things and worse every day while picking and choosing enemies that are acceptable for the United States to attack like al la carte menu items. Justifying those attacks is an after thought.
> The US mostly isn't interested in butchering it's own citizens, slavery is the approach we went with À la the U.S. prison system.
To the extent that one is addressing slavery, the point is generally the number of the enslaved and not particularly their conditions (there is not a "good" way to own people).
Protesters that took to the streets, according to what I read, because the US president said he would back them. Sounds like he led them to a slaughter to generate justification.
I'm delegitimizing the US president saying things he can't back up, causing death, and getting the US into another war that the American people didn't ask for.
No. You are saying that these people died because of Trump's tweet, and not because the IR goons gunned people on the streets. Seems to me that you place the fault on Trump, rather than on those who pulled the trigger.
you, Trump & Satanyahu are not entitled to your own peaceful counter-revolution - if you want to overthrow the democratically elected government of Iran, you must bear the necessarily sacrifices
Ali Khamenei won one election and has sat there as a supreme leader ever since, that is not democracy. Deposing him is needed for democracy, there has been many protests against him.
Iran is not a democracy, it is a fake democracy since the supreme leader cannot be voted away.
There is nothing ideal about that outcome. The "regime change" people talk about is intended to look like what happened in Libya: A failed state that falls in anarchy.
It doesn't matter - when a strong and stable political structures suddenly collapse, the state fails and disintegrates due to the political infighting. While I agree with you that the chances of Iran becoming a completely failed state is unlikely, I do see an imminent civil war in Iran's future if a regime collapse happens, and the Americans and Israelis install their Shahi (royal) puppet there. A regime collapse will of course mean Iran will lose its sovereignty (probably for a decade or more), till a truly independent stable polity emerges form the ashes.
I could see the water crisis, notably absent here, being what tips it. Iran is facing water bankruptcy and acquifers / groundwater recharge takes decades to centuries.
That's just simplistic western propaganda. Sporadic protests, nationwide or otherwise, don't mean anything unless they are backed by long-term-opposition with strong grass-roots and singular political goals. Iran's regime remains strong and stable - it controls all the political institutions, it controls the civilian government at the local level, it controls the religious / cultural institutions, it controls the military and it has substantial support from the people. Why do you think Israel or the US isn't sending boots to the ground? Apart from the official military, the IRGC has a voluntary civil force, that can be armed by the Iranian military, in every district - if Israel or US send their soldiers to Iran, they will face a very brutal urban warfare with a high death toll.
> Iran's regime remains strong and stable - it controls all the political institutions, it controls the civilian government at the local level, it controls the religious / cultural institutions, it controls the military and it has substantial support from the people.
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.
All of that was true for Japan as well but it went very well there, so your analysis is flawed. The more organized a country is the easier it is to change it, the more primitive the harder it is.
The US and Israel are involved. The only way it’s going to turn out is maximally lethal to all those not involved at all.
See… basically any military operation participated in by those nations in recent history.
We got a couple strikes and already managed to hit an elementary school. Nothing I’ve seen in Gaza or Iraq leads me to believe this will be any different.
However, to be fair, Desert Storm hasn't resulted in regime change. The Coalition bombed the shit out of the Iraqi army, but never committed to the ground operation deep inside Iraq. And Saddam's regime survived until the next war.
That alone hints that it is very hard to bring a dictatorship down with just aerial attacks - the ground component is also essential. Something tells me it is going to be the same here.
Only a land operation or a total collapse of the government, with the armed police and military joining the opposition, can topple the Iranian regime.
> That alone hints that it is very hard to bring a dictatorship down with just aerial attacks.
This has been painfully obvious since aerial bombing became possible, but we’ve had so many generals and executives obsessed with the concept that it continues to be a core doctrine, like Kissinger and Curtis LeMay, neither of for whom I have anything but deep contempt.
I'm glad someone else remembers. Desert Storm was fast (kind of) because it had a limited objective: Repel an invading army from another nation. It did not lead to an invasion (long term) of Iraq. Comparing any war with the objective of regime change to Desert Storm reveals that the commenter is grossly ignorant of recent history (36 years ago, it's not that far back to be so ignorant).
Desert Storm also wasn't really fast, it led to containment operations lasting a bit over a decade in total, ending only when we decided to invade Iraq with the objective of regime change and nation building. And that one, predictably, turned into a quagmire.
It would have confused the Iranians as the regime would then claim that the foreign military attacks prove that the protests are artificially engineered by the same foreign enemy with the support of the Shah. It would also mean the automatic imposition of martial law in Iran, thus making protests even more difficult to organise.
Fomenting a coup is very different than toppling a regime through military force.
My biggest concern has always been that US military action against Iran would undermine domestic factions pushing for democratic reforms, at best leading to the installation of a different autocratic regime more amenable to US interests, at worst leading to a wellspring of support for the existing regime both internally, and externally in the form of alliances with other nations who stand to benefit from a reshuffling of the existing world order.
"At best leading to the installation of a different autocratic regime more amenable to US interests" seems like a pretty fine outcome in US eyes, doesn't it? Outside of Israel, is democracy in the Middle East even realistic?
An autocrat regime friendly to US interests, who we could do business with, who won't pursue nuclear weapons, and who won't imperil US allies or the Strait of Hormuz would be a drastic improvement over the current state of affairs.
We don't need to nation-build to have a good outcome for the US: that's something we should've learned after Iraq and Afghanistan.
Sure, and probably no worse for the world at large, or for the majority of Iranians.
An improvement over the current regime isn't exactly a high bar.
Even speaking as a someone who generally detests the policies of both Trump and the current Israeli administration, while I don't expect the entirety of the IRGC to go quietly into the night, I can't help but see the removal of the Ayatollah as a good thing.
As for the broader question of democracy in the Middle East, I believe the answer is yes, though not quickly or easily. But an independent, democratic Iran coexisting peacefully with Israel and the US, however unlikely, would certainly be a good start.
Well hopefully this is short, minimally lethal, and leads to regime change for all those involved.
That would be ideal but unfortunately not likely. Nobody will like this comment but US ships are sitting ducks. They have minimal ammo per the pentagon and no oilers. No oilers and low ammo means no prolonged conflict. Only two of the ships are nuclear powered not counting submarines. Most of Iran's military and weapons are deep underground in a massive series of underground cities and tunnels. The US would require boots on the ground if they manage to breach the tunnel openings under the mountains. Should that fail the only viable targets are civilians and that won't win favor with anyone or accomplish anything.
Iranian military could just wait it out if they wanted and then smoke Israel with supersonic missiles when the US leaves. Then we find out if Israel does have the nukes for the Samson option and that would result in the destruction of Israel. Iran's military could survive a nuclear strike but would have to clean up the fallout and I am not sure they could. Anyone not underground would likely get Acute Radiation Sickness and Cancer.
On a positive note if the US can manage to get into the tunnels and send in enough munitions to start detonating the missile stockpile a chain reaction could crack all the concrete and collapse the tunnels. Satellite could detect which tunnel they try to evac from. They have less than 5 days to accomplish the chain reaction assuming this is the plan. From the videos I have seen the missiles are literally lined up like a double-strand fuse.
The US military has seldom had problems with the blowing up the enemy bit. It's providing peace and stability after that happens where they tend to run into problems.
The US military has seldom had problems with the blowing up the enemy bit.
True however AFAIK they have never once been in this situation. Iran has spent 40+ years digging in and hunkering down. There were plenty of bunkers in WWII but this is a whole new setup, deeper under mountains, higher quality concrete assuming they knew what they were doing and dug in much deeper. To get this done in 5 days will be quite a feet. If they manage to do it I will be very impressed.
It's providing peace and stability after that happens where they tend to run into problems.
I think you are correct, what happens afterwards is usually a crap-fest. That would require a lot of boots on the ground to maintain stability for a very long time. It's not a great example but Korea is one such example. The payoff may be worth it if many of the Iranian funded terror groups are drained of resources as a result. Keeping boots on the ground for years will require funding from congress. Short of that it will just be another power vacuum filled by yet another zealot. The "if's" are doing a lot of heavy lifting in my comment.
They don't necessarily have to kill all the Iranian military, just suppress internal security enough to where the Iranian people came rise up in rebellion. It's hard for the IRGC to suppress widespread protests/rebellion if they're constantly stuck hiding in bunkers and tunnels.
[Update]: It seems my dear leader is hitting all the cities... [1] I am not OK with this. Save the handful of leaders and scientists for ground recon instead of whacking all the citizens. Take out the missiles first. Most of the military and religious leaders are under ground. Take out those underground complexes and Iran is yours.
I wouldn't trust Al Jazeera here (or anywhere else) but "hitting all cities" doesn't really say much. If the attacks are going after the IRGC and the Basij then presumably you need to go after them fairly broadly. If the attacks are going at ballistic missiles and drones the same applied. The question is what are the targets and what's the plan. I'm sure they're going after those complexes as well.
Yes just like all the other places we have to maintain control congress would have to authorize boots on the ground, quite possibly for many years. Otherwise some other zealots just fill the voids.
There are some factors - this is an offensive being done to prop up Netanyahu's regime in Israel and distract the Americans from the Espstein files. The US thus means to keep it short-term. Moreover, in the middle-east, the American logistic chain runs through its Arab allies in the middle-east, and Iran has explicitly said that it will not hesitate to target its Arab neighbours, hosting American military bases, if the US attacks it. (And that's why it has retaliated against these American allies when it was attacked). Except for Saudi Arabia, these countries do not wish to get into a war with Iran for Israel, and have no interest in joining the war because Iran's missiles are quite precise and effective at short ranges (meaning they and their people will be facing the brunt of the war that they have no interest in). Thus, the US military is actually hampered because it cannot do anything without the host governments permission. (For example, during the last Iran attack, some allies did not allow the US to implement a nationwide jam of the GPS over its airspace). All this highlights the really hard balancing the US has to do to even agree to bomb Iran for a few days - one wrong move and the whole of middle-east can explode, and both the US and Israel will find itself on the receiving end as American and world public opinion turns against it.
It is odd. Trump has been receiving advice on Iran from General Dan Caine. It was suggested Caine warned of risks and limited munitions Trump refuted these stating Caine believes a conflict would be easily won. Other senior officers were in shock that he said this could be done. The pentagon objected due to the lack of ammo and oilers. This is one case where I wish he would listen to the senior officers with substantial experience instead of the guy that often agrees with him.
As perfectly echoed by Bob Dylan's Highway 61 song.
"Now the rovin’ gambler he was very bored /
He was tryin' to create a next world war /
He found a promoter who nearly fell off the floor /
He said I never engaged in this kind of thing before /
But yes I think it can be very easily done /
We'll just put some bleachers out in the sun /
And have it on Highway 61"
Yeah, the possibility of a regime collapse / change due to this military action is unlikely. The military goal seems to be to destroy Iran's military-industrial complexes to hamper its missile production. Note however that while Iran has potent missile capability, Iran's underground complexes where it is stored presents its own problems - in the absence of adequate air defence and an Air Force, its enemies can just bomb the openings of these underground complexes, making it very, very difficult for the Iranians to use its missile arsenals from there. (This is what Israel did the last time). As for the scenario you outlined, I highly doubt the US would be willing to send boots to the ground to blow up their missiles manually - urban warfare takes a heavy toll and I doubt if the Trump administration can withstand the criticism if body bags start coming home. Even the MAGA crowd has been unexceptionally hostile to Trump's attack on Israel.
I highly doubt the US would be willing to send boots to the ground to blow up their missiles manually - urban warfare takes a heavy toll and I doubt if the Trump administration can withstand the criticism if body bags start coming home.
You could be entirely right. Honestly I hope you are right. We lost far too many in Iraq and Afghanistan. I was probably just being cynical. I trust the decisions of the senior leaders in the military but their commander and chief tends to trust the wrong advice.
The only possible correction I might add is the Air Force probably will not drop bombs but would have to fire missiles. The openings are on the sides of mountains and require horizontal access or I suppose incredibly massive bombs. Earth shattering bombs. Something closer to tactical nukes which the US has not stockpiled in a long time AFAIK.
It's hard to find them now with all the AI slop being propped up but the best search terms may be "Iranian tunnel bunkers full of missiles". It is mostly YT channels run out of India. The oldest video I have seen was from CNN ten years ago. Iran will occasionally let journalists see their latest tunnel.
This is a short one showing the 2nd to last generation of tunnels. [1] The latest tunnels are painted white including some that are under water. The older tunnels are not painted and one can see what appears to be reinforced concrete. When completed every tunnel is lined on both sides with missiles. This one [2] shows a couple generations of the tunnels. Found the old CNN video. [3]
Won't there be boots on the ground? We already bombed their facilities and at the time they said best that bombs can do is fuck up the entrance to these tunnels.
This reminds me of the Al-Ahli hospital incident in Gaza, when a mysterious explosion at a hospital was immediately blamed on an Iraeli strike - first by Hamas, then by the international press. A precise death toll was immediately available: 500 killed. Israel urged caution as they investigated, but were ignored.
Eventually, it was established that 1) the casualty number had been a fabrication, 2) the explosion was in the parking lot, 3) it was NOT caused by an Israeli strike, but by a Palestinian Islamic Jihad rocket that had fell short.
Soon the press was forced to issue corrections - New York Times [1] , Le Monde [2], BBC [3]...
This incident looks VERY similar. Which is not surprising, since Hamas was trained in information warfare by the IRGC. Note that Al Jazeera (the media arm of Qatar, who funds Hamas and hosts their leaders in Doha) is enthusiastically amplifying this story with no apparent effort to cross-examine Iran's official source.
I predict that this story will turn out to be fabricated as well.
What the comment fails to mention is that Al-Shifa hospital was ultimately destroyed by Israeli forces, with grave civilian casualties, and no Hamas tunnels ever found: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Shifa_Hospital
The Wikipedia article you link says that Hamas tunnels were found under the hospital, and did have entrances near the hospital, but that no proof was provided that they were using the hospital and nearby tunnels as a 'command and control' centre.
My comment is about Al-Ahli, not Al-Shifa. Those are two different hospitals.
> Al-Shifa hospital was ultimately destroyed by Israeli forces
It was damaged by a series of battles between Hamas and IDF, because Hamas militants embedded themselves within it - like they embedded themselves within all civilian infrastructure. That is the reality of urban war against a terrorist group.
> with grave civilian casualties
Hamas alleged grave civilian casualties. Israel contests it. Again, just like the Al-Ahli incident, Hamas rushes to publish suspiciously precise casualties and reframes an urban battle as a genocidal massacre; naive newsrooms uncritically publish it; wikipedia editors quotes it; then people with an axe to grind endlessly reference it in online arguments like this one.
With Al-Ahli, we got lucky. Independent evidence made it impossible to ignore that Hamas was lying. In many other cases, it is impossible to independently verify how many civilians were truly killed in this or that battle. You have to either believe the IDF, or Hamas.
> and no Hamas tunnels ever found
Al-Shifa was controlled by Hamas and used as a military facility. Hostages were held there. After the ceasefire, Hamas used it as a jail and torture center for Palestinian dissidents.
Or do you believe Israel sent troops inside a hospital in a warzone, at great risk to their safety, to destroy a random hospital with no military value?
The Palestinian rocket story was never confirmed, and it seems unlikely that the rockets from PIJ were the cause. Their ballistic trajectory did not match with the hospital, and most or all their fuel had burned [1].
I recommend you read the whole text, it's quite short.
In other words, the new "established facts" about Al-Ahli are also questionable, and part of Israeli propaganda. It remains to be seen what the truth is in either case.
The fact of the matter is. Eventually Israel destroyed a fuckton of hospitals and schools in Palestine, on purpose. So this particular story in itself does not really matter.
2 countries with the best war technologies on earth must work together to have a war with embargod-country-for-decades.
And those 2 counties are founder of Board of Peace.
The reason it is hard is not due to a power balance. Both of those countries could have sent nukes with minimal efforts.
But their goal is targeted and precise attacks, that effectively destroy targets based on specific, and high quality intelligence.
The other part is that defense against missiles is significantly harder and more expensive than sending missiles. Iran, while relatively poor, has dedicated a significant part of its economy for missile development and production.
Day one and they've already bombed a school and killed dozens of children. The goals, strategy and tactics have not been clearly communicated. You can pray they are using high quality intelligence, but history tells us they are not at all concerned with collateral damage. They likely want to degrade Iran's military capabilities, but they also want them cowed and bleeding.
Israel is interested in the fall of the Iranian regime, a thing that can only happen if the Iranian people will rebel against it. The last thing Israel wants is to have the Iranians rally behind the state’s flag.
Based on this cold calculation, bombing a school full of children would be counter productive, even if you believe the Israelis are just collecting children's blood to make matzahs (passover is just around the corner!).
On a more serious note, do you know the actual source for this claim? I don’t mean the news outlet, I mean what entity gave this to the news outlet.
> Israel is interested in the fall of the Iranian regime, a thing that can only happen if the Iranian people will rebel against it.
I personally don't believe in such appeals to rationality of parties waging wars. The issue is: if you wage a war, you can't control precisely what is going on. No one can. Like MH17 was shot down by pro-Russian separatists: who was interested in it? No one was, but still MH17 was shot down.
Israel bombed schools, it probably did it without clear intent to bomb them, but at the same time it means it is not very concerned about a couple of hundred of underage causalities. Like it was (and it is) not at all concerned about Palestinian causalities in Gaza. Moreover to my mind, it is the strategic stance of Israel: to be as brutal as possible to make neighbors to fear Israel. Israel does it for decades, it does it every time it wages a war. It means that now it just cannot wage a war without demonstrations of brutality. Even if it wanted to it just cannot, because on all levels of command people were taught to demonstrate brutality, and they were not taught how to wage war surgically. You can't overcome such a training on so many levels with a carefully crafted prompt.
> do you know the actual source for this claim? I don’t mean the news outlet, I mean what entity gave this to the news outlet.
> Ok, so the Iranian regime itself published this news? And you don’t even question it?
I question everything, and in this case I'm choosing to believe it. Such fakes are hard to forge, and as recent history shows such news are not fakes. Look at Russia which claimed that it did nothing wrong for how many times? Russia all the time tried to declare that everything is a fake forged by Ukraine. And if we look at what Ukraine did to Russia, we can't find a single example of a fake news forged by Russia.
A priori probability of this being a fake is low, and if you look into it, it is a pretty good "fake". No one still questioned it, while you can see some news from Iran that are clearly anti-regime news.
So, no, without clear evidence for this being a fake, I believe it is not a fake.
It's all over. NY Times writeup points to multiple sources and videos of destruction that they have authenticated. I don't think any body count has been independently verified.
You are relying on unreliable news sources, the strikes are incredibly precise. See the aerial photo of Khamenei's residence that was bombed [1]. You can see how the surrounding area remains surprisingly clean in face of the utter destruction in the middle.
One nice thing about Reddit, is that if someone posts fake news, people refute it (which is not the case in this post). So there is active fact checking in place.
That photo is taken directly from AP news reporting, taken by Airbus.
Reddit is a shithole, even more so after it went public a year ago..
Anyway, I don't think the AP pictures are too convincing. Sure it might look like smoke in there, but it looks more like the entire right side of the image was carpetbombed - not just the building complex in the middle
My greater concern is the people of Iran. Especially since Iran has conscription so the people who end up dieing in a war didn't even consent to being made soldiers.
They've funded Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis for decades. They've assassinated dissidents on foreign soil. They sentence people to death for apostasy and flog women for not wearing hijab correctly.
The sanctions aren't about race. They're about behaviour.
Nobody said that. But they are a sovereign country that did not attack America. Bombing them because you find their internal politics distasteful is appalling, to say the least.
That’s not why they’re being bombed. They’re being bombed because they strive for nukes and ICBMs with ever larger range, all the while calling “death to america”.
P.S. downplaying their behavior to “distasteful”, is, well, distasteful.
There are no "good guys" in real-life. If you as an individual revile proxy conflict, assassination of dissidents abroad, torture and summary execution, then it's hard to stand on the American soapbox and demand change. Many Iranians still remember SAVAK, and are told stories of the last time they tried nationalizing their resources.
The US doesn't need an interventionist policy with Iran any more than we need to invade North Korea. Israel needs it though, and their entire strategy is to risk American lives for their meaningless expansion campaign.
No. But they are a sovereign nation who didn't directly bomb the US or its allies.
>They've funded Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis for decades. They've assassinated dissidents on foreign soil. They sentence people to death for apostasy and flog women for not wearing hijab correctly.
You want to know who the US has funded? You want to know who Israel has funded?
I mean, shit, the US took out Iran's democratically elected government in the 1970s and was a huge fan of the Mullahs because they let us steal Iranian oil. The same secular Iranian government that was quite literally the first middle eastern country to recognize the existence of Israel, and was a leading secular state in a region of ass-backwards religious nutcases.
Israel has refused to acknowledge the obvious existence of its nuclear weapons program while Iran is a full member of the IAEA and allows for full international inspection of its uranium facilities.
Fuck, the Israelis engage in massive blackmailing operations of their own "allies" (see Epstien, Jeffrey) , attack their own "allies" (see USS Liberty attack), and have tried to goad its "allies" into carrying out attacks on their behalf. They are a tiny bully that starts shit they cannot handle themselves, and American lives are sacrificed because of it.
I'd say being an apartheid state and conducting a live-streamed genocide could possibly be a minor issue. Just a PR issue mind, Lord knows we've given up on our souls long ago.
For what it's worth, I think the American activists on this issue bungled the messaging to disastrous effect (in the same way we bungled criminal-justice reform). It's a saturated issue with low political salience outside a specific (and increasingly constrained) demographic.
A win in Iran will be a short-term boost, in America and in Israel. Then we'll go back to being pissed about rising prices.
When it comes to Israel, polling was always lower in younger populations, although yes - the trend worsened.
Israel chose to trade popularity for having real geopolitical gains on the ground. Popularity could be won back later, but removing the Iranian ring of fire around it is a real and tangible achievement that would last decades and change the Middle East.
> No. Any other questions, or do you want to just continue feigning interest in having an actual conversation?
This is an actual question. It seems to me that you only care about Arabs dying. Jews can die left and right in the hands of Arabs and you won’t blink an eye. Am I correct?
I just want to clarify it for others who reads your comments to see.
Not really sure what to say here. Maybe it’s a lack of empathy or imagination because the victims are Palestinians?
Perhaps a good thought experiment would be to swap out Israel and Palestine with some other similar (real or fictional) conflict to help you think through your apparent confusion.
About a third of American Jews now agree that Israel is an apartheid state and committing genocide against Palestinians.
It remains to be seen what impact this will have, but it will certainly impact the ability for everyone to claim that criticism of Israel and sympathy for Palestinians is motivated by antisemitism.
The democrats lost the last election in part because of their stance on Israel.
With a bit of luck this could lead to a shift in policy within a generation.
American "activists" (didn't know being anti-genocide was a fringe belief but here we are) clearly won the narrative. Most Americans now oppose what Israel is doing in Gaza and want all support to this country to stop ASAP. This support for Israel cost Harris the election, as shown in their latest post-mortem of the 2024 election, and is making Trump and his administration ever more unpopular.
Killing kids on camera, burning people in hospitals alive, running them over in bulldozers is pretty much genocide. You can easily find these videos on internet (I don't recommend watching them even if you watch cartel beheadings for fun)
No, these things do not constitute a genocide. Genocide is the purposeful extermination of a people. What you’re describing are other alleged war crimes. While it’s a catchy and horrifying word that’s very useful against Israel, it’s dishonest to use it in this case.
All the things you described are indeed horrifying on their own, and I believe there are cases where Israeli forces did some of these things unjustifiably.
You must be asking yourself what the hell could be justified. Well, I’ve heard first accounts of kids being sent first as scouts in the battlefield, into a kill box, trying to pinpoint Israeli forces. Once the scout goes back and reports on the force’s location, an accurate barrage of RPGs will be shot at them. You can’t go into the kill box to stop them by arresting them. What would you have done? I do not envy the person that has to make that call, they are now scarred for life.
Justified? No? You pick between the life of that kid and the lives of the people under your command. Both choices are bad, this isn’t Hollywood.
Most of what you watch is edited purposefully and doesn’t give you any context for the purpose of recruiting the public opinion. It’s working amazingly.
These populists, so called leaders, don't represent everyone and are hated by many. In war everyone loses, and you seem to ignore the fact that there are two sides here. Normative people don't wake up in the morning wanting to murder children for fun. Your cartoonish image of Israelis as some kind of horned monsters is ridiculous.
I keep hearing that Israel is the only democracy of Middle East. And they keep getting elected, which means they are not some kind of extremists, but represent opinion of general population
The American/Israeli media empire is 100x larger than anything Hamas can disseminate. The "media is dishonest" excuse doesn't apply to Hamas any more than it does to the Israeli Military Censor: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_Military_Censor
I don't watch, I talk to real people who are first hand witnesses.
Second, Israel doesn't own any media empire, what exactly do you mean?
Third, Hamas doesn't need to dismantle any media organization, they got Qatar with their own world wide media empire of AlJazeera.
Iran was likely going to do that themselves by the massive inflation they caused through reckless financial policies such as Venezuelan style price controls. Russia is managed to weather sanctions decently, Iran's economic leadership is far more incompetent despite being a petrol state. Even in Tehran they can't get enough water because of the failure of infrastructure and planning (despite plenty of money being available for certain failed regional military projects).
There was a study showing almost every revolution happened not because of ideology but over the price of bread.
> There was a study showing almost every revolution happened not because of ideology but over the price of bread.
His name was Marx. ;)
Yeah. We'll see. Under what conditions will you consider yourself right or wrong? My prediction is after killing a few more heads of state, disabling some more striking capability that they'll back off under pressure from the Arab states. Trump will declare it as a victory regardless of what happens and everyone will forget about it. Iran will eventually rebuild itself as it just did, but this time it will take longer (Trump even said that himself, contradicting himself earlier).
Even if Trump doesn't care, Israel is very motivated to make regime change happen. They want to be permanently rid of Iran's nuclear threat, its funding of terrorist groups, all of it. Honestly I think Trump or at least his administration is on a similar page, and if not the Israelis can clearly be pretty persuasive.
No, my worry is whether it will be a regime change that benefits the Iranian people or some kind of sick puppet state. But of course:
> Trump will declare it as a victory regardless of what happens
...This goes without saying.
Edit: worth noting the Arab states tend to hate Iran as well, and Iran has already sprinkled some ballistic missiles on them just in this war. They're not going to speak up for Iran unless they think the escalation is getting too dangerous for themselves.
> Even if Trump doesn't care, Israel is very motivated to make regime change happen.
It doesn't matter. There are zero cases in history of successful regime change by air only. Iran, of all countries, has an extremely robust succession plan and at a last resort the IRGC itself will take over.
> Iran has already sprinkled some ballistic missiles on them just in this war
I can see you're not following this too seriously.
You didn't give objective criteria for how to judge whether you're right or wrong yet.
You should follow more seriously which usernames you're talking to. But as far as objective criteria, if a regime change happens I don't expect it to be subtle or debatable. Seeing the IRGC disbanded would be a pretty solid signal, though.
Obviously it's not going to be done 100% from the air. The Iranian people will have to play a big role. I just hope they manage to seize initiative from Trump and Netanyahu as far as how their government is run.
I do note that we've strayed a bit from the thesis of "Iran is so powerful Israel and the US have to gang up on it". :D
Sure. Anyway, did you have a factual critique of my statement about Iran throwing ballistic missiles around the Middle East, or did you just find my tone insufficiently serious?
Ok. So we have just taken out all of Israel's foes with force. They are safe now right? We can stop supporting them militarily in every way now right? They no longer need any weapons, intelligence support, defense support, etc, right? If this is the right path to their long term safety then this must be true.
America / Israel's partnership goes a lot deeper, it started in the cold war, and it's quite interesting.
It heightened significantly after 9/11, where Israel spied (and still does) on all of America's enemies to prevent another 9/11, doing a lot of dirty work, giving intel as part of a partnership.
I can't imagine both countries ever wanting to get rid of that partnership.
This part of the equation is often left out in the conversation, presumably because it's hush hush ultimately.
This is the gist of Israel's problem. Successful tactically, but no long term strategy. They're increasingly isolated. As Baby Boomer voters lose power in US, Israel's isolation will become more obvious.
Before you ask "how's that going", remember that doing nothing wouldn't result in a satisfactory answer to that question either.
The idea that "killing the enemies turns the rest of the world into enemies" is absurd. Other countries wouldn't follow the Iranian regime into martyrdom. What would be the reason: "we don't like war"?
Nobody likes war, but also nobody likes evil dictators emerging on this planet and repressing 90 million of its inhabitants, and waging industrial scale terrorism offensives beyond its borders.
In history class, we asked the teacher why the British killed these rebels and exiled those rebels. The rebels who led an army and killed many were exiled while the rebel who only had one kill was hung in the middle of his village and left to rot as an example.
She sat they killed some of those rebels, it would have sparked more rebellions. The difference was political power, even in defeat. Mercy is a big part of survival.
It's a bit like law enforcement. If there's no police, criminals are everywhere. If there's too many police, corruption becomes the standard, along with police brutality and profiling. You can never get it down to zero, just low enough.
The comment is so out of touch. Even Chineses and Russians are disgusted by Iran's culture e.g. how they treat women and many others. Then, there's the saying "you know who Islam hates more than the jews and christians? other slightly different Islam groups."
And these countries are supposed to be Iran's closest allies due to having a common enemy.
Iran was/is Russian ally. Very prominent part of Russia is Chechnya. It is islamic and its leader is effectively Putins favorite pet. It is not as bad as Iran in treatment of women, but it is also not like Russia would care one bit about that.
Russians and Chineses and anyone really absolutely care about who they form alliances with.
Not sure where you get the idea that people don't care who they are friend with. They absolutely don't want to be friend whose culture is considered as disgusting.
They may form an alliance due to having a common enemy but in practice the alliance is just checking a box.
To take a break from breaking havoc in Gaza, there was an israeli incursion into Lebanon (which included a fantastic supply chain attack) Then they tried to pick a fight in Siria for some BS reason (intervening Siria for protecting some jew friendly faction inside Siria, a la Russia protecting russiansnin Ukraine), then went to Iran, then continued milling Gaza, and now we are back at Iran, again.
No, it is you saying someone deserves to die. I correctly stated Israel is invading another country for any reason which is not national security. It is the exact same sht with Russia in Ukrained because Israel also appropiated of Sirian territory.
Israel has enough genocide at home, no need to invade other countries
I don't think this is terrorism, that's not what the word means. It's a clear and open act of war, so in many ways much worse, but somehow terrorism is a scarier word.
Murdering million children in Iraq, now attacking school in Iran, 2 million people dead in Ukraine, regime change operations across the world, military and economic interventions across the world.
English is not my first language. If you got a better word other than American terrorists and American terrorism, then suggest me one.
Yes, the USA and Israel are putting an end to a 47 year war of Iran vs. Everyone. There will be casualties on every side, that is war. Iran made the middle east into a giant PVP server. That is coming to an end.
This is also a good deal for the Iranian government since they can transfer hatred people had for them to the America and Israel. No one will see Trump as salvation and the “rally behind the flag” phenomena in times of invasion applies just as much to Iran as it does to the USA.
> Iranian media now report 40 killed and 48 students injured following the strike on a girls’ elementary school in Minab, as rescue and recovery efforts continue.
As an Iranian-American that's familiar with the regime, I would take that with a grain of salt. I saw this being reported from the Iranian regime themselves and they know how to manipulate optics and media really well. It's possible, but needs verification. I would also not put it past Iran to build their military infrastructure around schools intentionally (similar to Hamas with hospitals) in the hopes that it has this exact effect. Of course that does nothing to take away from the tragedy of innocent people dying and I'm not trying to negate that in any way, just something to point out.
100%. In another comment [1] I drew a parallel with the Al-Ahli hospital incident in Gaza. Once you understand basic information warfare tactics, they're easy to spot. Why newsrooms still fall for it so easily is the real mystery...
Iran tends to lie about these things while Israel usually says the truth, at least after running an investigation. It's pretty simple: one is a dictatorship without free media, and the other one isn't. It's easy to lie when you can tell the newspapers what to write, and it's much harder when they're doing their job. You want an example? Khamenei. Iran says he's safe and wasn't hurt. Israel says he's dead. Let's see.
> while Israel usually says the truth, at least after running an investigation
You can't be serious about that statement. At best it reflects overwhelming naivete about how governments (let alone those engaged in war) work. At worst, its a deliberate attempt at misinformation.
The idea is that criticism of Iran from an Iranian-American would have more merit. However, we have no way to confirm the validity of this claim. It could very well be someone pretending to be an Iranian-American.
In my experience, I find people who are "former ABC-ian" to actually be very heavily biased, if not outright lying about ABC. Mentally, I'd say it's worth less weight than someone with no information.
They left because they were unhappy with things. The former British folks are enraged about human rights abuses and societal collapse in Britain. The ex-Christians will rarely praise the Bible.
Not that there's zero weight, it's still a perspective to consider. But it has to be fact checked thoroughly.
Easy, it was Israel that probably did it and it's been shown time and time again that they can do this without political fallout under the guise that the target was a hiding spot for the military assets of Iran (or Hamas in the case of Palestine bombing).
> Easy, it was Israel that probably did it and it's been shown time and time again that they can do this without political fallout under the guise that the target was a hiding spot for the military assets of Iran (or Hamas in the case of Palestine bombing).
Are you claiming that Iran (or Hamas) site their military bases away from schools (or hospitals)?
The problem you have when you try to shield your armed forces with civilians is that you then place those civilians in danger.
What do you expect will happen when an armed force uses civilians as shields? It's not a rhetorical question, I really want to know what you expect an attacking force to do. Stop attacking?
That said, if the US/Israel didn't do it, we'd have heard a denial by now. Perhaps the target was a nearby military site. Placing military sites next to schools sounds like a tactic from the Hamas Resistance handbook.
Fair point, I take back my last remark about placement of schools near bases. God I wish the Iranian regime would just surrender, it would be so much better for everyone. Look at Hamas, they refused to surrender and the result was colossal death and misery.
Why would you believe this statement any more than a statement from Putin, Likud, Trump... or anyone like that? The Iranian regime recently admitted to shooting thousands of their own people who were protesting.
Without some confirmation, everything is propaganda, isn't it? Jeez... there is no greater force that that to have one's bias confirmed, is there. That is going to destroy us.
Both of those are crimes. It's worth noting that the Israeli crimes tend to be less criticized by western governments which tends to make some people angrier about it.
No need to worry. They have extensively stress-tested the American public over the past few years and the conclusion is clear: Americans are never going to revolt no matter what you do to them.
You are mistaken.
Just don't assume that diminishing support for Trump will result in increased support for the democratic party. I find both equally disgusting.
All the people who huffed about Kamala and Trump being sides of the same coin have brought us to this stage. You think Kamala's admin would be anywhere as venal, corrupt, blatantly unlawful as this?
Yes, and absolutely, yes.
I am old enough to realize that these are the sides of the same coin. They have different but overlapping sets of masters, but the end result is always the same. I don't see the point of losing time at the polls. Marx was right.
> Nothing like a war to boost your popularity just before the elections
If he pulls off a regime change, even a Delcy-style swaparoo, he'll get it, and arguably not undeservedly. It will ultimately come down to Iran's capacity to inflict casualties on American forces.
I’m not so sure. This is no where near a priority issue for most Americans, “I can’t afford eggs and the immigrant I buy pizza from got shipped to a warehouse but thank god the regime changed in Iran.”
More than anything else, conservatives love the feeling that they are winning. Over a rival sports team, over a political opponent, and especially over a foreign power. This is why MAGA won over the neocons so easily, the MAGA shtick is to claim to be always winning.
Many conservatives voted for trump because they thought he wasn't a "war hawk", they don't want the US in wars around the world, they don't want their children sent off to die in foreign lands. So they voted for trump and then got "Department of War", and now a war in Iran, the last thing they wanted.
This isn't a defense of the president or his policies but we don't know if this will be a (sustained) war or rather a week or two of airstrikes like the previous iteration and the Maduro thing.
> Many conservatives voted for trump because they thought he wasn't a "war hawk"
I doubt their honesty. Considering they blamed Biden for Russia invading Ukraine and October 7 with the galaxybrain reasoning of "It didn't happen while Trump was in office", I am convinced the isolationism thing is just an unserious talking point.
Even the Joe Rogan MAGAs should remember when they cried on social media about how they were about to be drafted after the Soleimani thing under Trump.
I call bullshit on that. They used war hawk accusation against Harris for the same reason they said she is uneducated and stupid - just a smear and lie in a see of lies. It was just yet another false concern of people who dont care.
There was no reason to believe Harris will be more likely to start a war. They did not cared about that bit. It just sounded better the "I would never vote for democrat" or "she is black woman" or "I want to harm trans people" or "I want to stick it to liberals".
Schumer was brought into a briefing on Iran and clearly 'got his mind right' in there. I don't know who makes decisions in government, but it's not the people on camera. US elections are irrelevant to consequential matters, and we waste too much time thinking about them.
I think this framing is bad, it's not that people don't think there are consequences it's that it's 50/50 on whether the consequences will be personally worse for them. There are few, maybe no upsides, to elections in the U.S. for the majority of the electorate.
Obviously. They would have kidnapped or assassinated leadership many decades ago otherwise. They have tried and failed many times. They're talking about trying to break the state though, which isn't something the US tried in Vz. This'll be much harder.
Many folks said that if the supreme leader got killed then it's all over. I honestly skeptical since IRGC folks would take over and I think they are much more militant than the Supreme Leader.
You are right to be skeptical. Khomeini died and now Khamenei is supreme leader. He too will have a successor if he dies (or is dead as Isreal clamed a moment ago). Iran has spent the last few weeks picking out successors four deep for each office. It's been the main news besides the "negotiations".
> We didn’t change the regime in Venezuela though right?
Practically speaking, we changed it. The foreign and energy policies we care about changed. The notion that you need to wholesale clean shop to qualify as regime change is misguided and counterproductive [1].
(On the other end of the spectrum, the fact that we kept the Japanese Emperor on his throne doesn't mean we didn't change the Japanese regime.)
I don't know if the same theory works in Iran though right, Iran is amidst economic collapse. It seems like the situation in Venezula with Maduro was tenable so when we decapitated the leader and got what we wanted it was ok that maybe most things didn't change. Is there a similar theory for Iran that's not soaked in hubris?
> Is there a similar theory for Iran that's not soaked in hubris?
Lots of factions in Iran, including within the IRGC. Khamenei's bunker gets hit, oh no, new dude knives the competition and then makes a call to the White House.
They leveraged special operations forces in Venezuela. Iran has two US carrier groups on their front door; this operation is not going to be as precise as the one against Maduro.
Trump could liberate every repressed country in the world and it would not impact in the slightest the cold hard fact that neither I nor most the people I know will ever vote R again.
I really hope the US electorate never forgives the Republican Party for the damage it’s done to this country, but I suspect that people’s memories will be short.
If the US public was inclined to “never forgive” those kind of offenses (or even to really fully reject them even once they no longer had dominant support) then the Democratic Party would have been destroyed for its role as the party of slavery and insurrection instead of surviving long enough to reject the bigotry that motivated those stances only to have the Republican Party immediately pick it up.
If you are admitting that you voted R in 2024, and only now you won't vote R, that really doesn't fix anything. Your bar is set so insanely low that you will vote R on someone who is slightly better than Trump.
As a life long D voter, I am personally going to vote R every election now because I want US to sink into the ground so low that people like you experience actual pain and suffering.
Stop it. You're not helping. This kind of thing is really counterproductive. Welcome your comrade with open arm. Give him time to warm up. Don't be an absolutist.
Its not about abolitionism, its about realizing that Trump is not the cause, its a symptom.
The same sentiment that cause Nazi party to rise in power has never been eliminated, its just resurfaced itself years later. USA is not the only one with conservative problem, multiple countries in Europe have signs that right wing populism is on the rise.
And in order to be eliminated, we have to be able to get to extreme levels of social policing. And the only way to get there is through a social reset where people forgo all the comforts in life and are forced to confront the things that are actually important.
Lets be clear, you and most people aren't "fighting". Typing comments on the internet, voting, and maybe donating money to PACs is literally the minimum amount of effort anyone can do to show support.
Even for those that are doing political outreach, while the effort being put in is more than the average person, the direction is misplaced - in 2024 it was pretty clear that no matter how much information you give people, they are going to vote a certain way because of extreme polarization.
If people were willing to actually FIGHT for what they believe in through offensive means, physical or cyber, with direct results, I would have a different opinion.
But at this point, its pretty clear where society is headed. I don't want to live in that world either, but shit is going to boil over at one point or another, and delaying the inevitable just means we all get fucked when we are senior citizens instead of within the next decade.
Having grown up deep in the Bible belt, I can say that there's often a lot of overlap between the Jesus people and the various -ists
Bigotry has been a big part of the Moral Majority's platform for decades for a reason - it works on that demographic
I have an armchair theory about one possible contributing factor
These are two of the most fundamental beliefs of evangelicals and they don't make much sense when you put them side-by-side:
1. God is the ultimate progenitor and prototype of love
2. God wants to torture a LOT of people forever, some of whom you may know personally and may be all appearances be decent people
This creates a certain amount of cognitive dissonance
Rather than reconsider those beliefs (which may result in your own everlasting torment), it's far easier to resolve that discomfort by dehumanizing non-Christians. Maybe they're actually really rotten people that deserve to be tortured
You're acting like people are rational. It's just about power. Appearing strong appeals to the apes inside the humans. And no one is more in touch with his inner ape than Trump.
Military action in Iran is deeply unpopular, being supported by just 27% of US adult citizens [1]. As an aside, Congress literally doesn't care what voters think [2]. The pearl-clutching about this from Congressional Democrats isn't about policy but process, with the likes of Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries saying Congress should authorize this action, not that it shouldn't happen.
I'm interested in what makes empires tick, what their basis of power is.
Spain in the colonial era was propped up by looting silver from Central and South America, for example.
The British Empire is what many (including me) like to call the "drug dealer empire". First tobacco then later opium. Any claims that we didn't know about the health risks of tobacco are complete BS (eg [3]).
Circling back to your point, the US is what I like to call the "arms dealer empire". WW1 and WW2 massively enriched the United States. NATO is essentially a protection racket for Europe and the price is, you guessed it, buying arms from the United States.
And the next Budget has proposed increasing "defense" spending from an already eye-popping $1 trillion to $1.5 trillion [4]. Where does that money go? Arms, weapons programs, defense contractors, the ultra-wealthy.
War is good for business even though it's unpopular.
True but they will have a hard time ignoring the 22nd amendment of the US constitution and it would be an easy move to remove him from the election process which a majority of the states themselves could do without opposition.
They might try the good old Putin trick, have a puppet elected on behalf of Trump and let Trump have another high-ranking position (e.g. Vice President) and hold the real power. Trump can still do most of campaigning, and there is also ample opportunity for election fraud.
Each state can decide to not list him in the election process. Some red states for sure would but plenty would not including a few red and purple states.
Trump can literally do all the things that the epstein files accuse him of doing, right on camera in front of everyone, and Americans will still vote for him all because he isn't a "woke" black woman.
There is a huge flame war in the comments as people who had money on 27th Feb are claiming the attack started on that date
I think they don’t have an argument because technically the missile can be de-activated up until the last seconds before it reaches its intended target
Still it feels surreal to argue about these things , bomb dropping on humans and other humans attacking each other for the privilege to have their bet honored on when said bombs dropped on the other side of the world
I guess people in intelligence communities had these sort of bets going on ever since WW2 and Vietnam , but still it’s uncanny to see it widespread to potentially the whole population of the internet
I tried to access that URL but it's banned in my country (Romania) for being an "exploitative gambling website". It's the first time I've felt that my country has a sensible internet policy.
Due to distance planes need to take off many hours before the bombs drop.
You can get an edge here by moving your ass somewhere where you can see the planes take off, maybe a team with people at multiple locations - boats near the aircraft carrier, near military bases in Israel, ...
I hope this war will be short.
And that the result will be Iran becoming a democracy that fully joins the global community. The Iranian people (Persians, Azerbaijanis, Kurds, and others), deserve better.
It would benefit the entire world to see Iran integrated and engaged internationally.
I know a lot of the responses are skeptical (for good reason), but the opportunity is certainly there. The pro-regime population is aging out, with the more secular youth taking hold. There has always been an appreciation for American culture (specifically) amongst the general population. This was true when I was there in the 80s and increasingly more true over the decades since. Concessions by the regime over the hijab laws is one example of the society drifting more towards Western norms. Alcohol and western style parties are way more present in the society than ever before. Basically, the foundation for it is certainly there.
Furthermore if Reza Pahlavi does manage to integrate into the society, he will most certainly use his business and political ties here in the US to westernize the society. He's said as much. Some of the more well known Iranian-American business leaders here in the US (CEO of Uber, CEO of intuit, founder of eBay for example) I'm sure would contribute to work towards this also.
There will be push-back from rural areas (just like anywhere else) and the regime will not go away overnight, but the possibility does exist for this outcome. I think the biggest roadblock would be America and Israel intentionally preventing this outcome for the reasons that suit them geopolitically.
EDIT: should have mentioned that after decades of widely known voter manipulation and more or less "mock" elections, Iranians would be happy to finally participate in actual democratic processes where their votes and voices matter
> And that the result will be Iran becoming a democracy that fully joins the global community.
You can hope that (and I can hope that), but the powers that are driving this military action completely do not care about this outcome. Which makes it exceedingly difficult for me to think this will happen.
I know the US proxies keep blabbering about 'regime change', but there's zero intentionality behind the political work to do that. My guess is balkanization, which won't really go how the US/Israel wants it to go
There is zero likelihood of that. The IRGC and Iranian forces are a million strong and have a loyal base of support among the population. Without boots on the ground, relying on air power and 'moderate rebels' you are looking at at least a decade of war (using Syria and Libya as best-case-scenarios examples; Assad regime was nothing like the Iranian). The Israelis are dividing the opposition by pushing the out-of-touch monarchists as their would-be puppets and the Trump regime are backing them too. Which means they are not even seriously pushing any viable or credible alternative. They are likely arming the Kurdish and other ethnic factions in the region and stoking ethnic conflict. It is in Israel's interests to prolong the conflict , to degrade Iran's military and economy (like they did in Syria) and even break it up into smaller manageable parts. The monarchists are a moon-shot; Reza Pehlavi is not his father (who also was a US puppet) - Israelis like him because he will be weak and pliable and completely dependent on foreign patronage.
Interesting point on Israel pushing for the monarchy to come back.
Democracy in the middle-east does not result in Israel or US aligned governments, but the monarchies have proven more interested in preserving their autocratic dynasties and quite easy and eager to work with Israel and the US to preserve themselves.
My observation was that more democracy in the Middle East is not what Israel or the US is interested in, given that the people's choice there would be overwhelmingly against Israeli and US interests.
They replaced the last democratic choice in Egypt with another military dictator, they keep the widely unpopular autocrat in Jordan on his throne with military and intelligence subsidies, have established and propped up a network of autocratic Gulf states that toe the line...
So yeah, I would not be surprised that Israel and the US would be more than happy to but a scion of the previous Iranian autocratic dynasty back on the throne there.
Iran elects their President. Is it a shining example of a democracy, no, but it has a much stronger democratic tradition than say Saudi Arabia. If the US and British hadn't been meddling there for the last 70 years it would probably be a secular democracy now.
They elect someone from a short list approved by the supreme leader...who will execute policy dictated to him by the supreme leader. Plus thousands of Iranians are executed yearly for crimes against the regime (make it tens of thousands in 2026). Calling Iran a democracy is a joke, it's a brutal dictatorship.
We saw significant success with Germany, Japan, South Korea, and other countries in the past. But more recently, similar efforts seem to have ended in failure.
We fully went into those countries and were willing to spend decades rebuilding them.
They’re also nice countries, with governments and organisation. Places like Afghanistan have nothing. You have to try and start civilisation from scratch, in a hostile land.
> They’re also nice countries, with governments and organisation. Places like Afghanistan have nothing. You have to try and start civilisation from scratch, in a hostile land.
I was thinking more along the lines of Japan or South Korea. Militarily restrained, but prosperous and strong.
I understand that recent military actions have often made things worse, not better. I am just trying to stay optimistic. From what I know, many Iranians are not enthusiastic about religion controlling law and politics.
We literally just went through this with Venezuela. They replaced the dictator with the assistant dictator. The Iranian face of regime change making the rounds in Western media is the son of the last Shah.
This scenario always imagines that the people getting bombs rained down on them will somehow determine that their actual friends in the world are those dropping the bombs.
Even accepting this, how exactly are these peaceful, western friendly civilians going to withstand a war better than their country's army?
It's very depressing to see this playbook credulously trotted out yet again. When has this worked?
As I recall Iran said quite openly, in response to the US troop buildup, that they would see an attack by Israel as an attack by the US, suggesting that they could target e.g. carriers instead of Israel if Israel attacked them.
> I'm not sure what's the logic behind that PR-wise
Part of it is the stated idea that Israel still has public support. That such an exchange, even if Israel launches the first strike, would get more support. This is probably misjudging the actual public support for Israel, which is much lower amongst the general public than amongst (esp. Republican) political circles.
The other part of it is that Trump has surrounded himself with card-carrying nazis, who have not at all been subtle about their desires to harm jews.
> but regardless, it didn't happen.
That Israel didn't launch the first strike and instead insisting on a joint strike (despite otherwise being constantly warmongering), suggests to me that it's the latter 'part' of the reason that had a lot of weight here.
While I think this (and Venezuela) are arguably the biggest missteps this administration is making, it's hardly a partisan point. The political establishment loves war more than perhaps anything else. In 2016 alone Obama bombed half a dozen different countries with more than 26,000 munitions for an average rate of three bombs dropped every hour, every day, for a year. [1] Nobel Peace Prize embodied.
I think the only way to get away from the warmongering is to go for a third party. But even they would likely be corrupted by the excessive influence of the military industrial complex. Eisenhower was not only right, but plainly prophetic.
Not defending that peace price but:
Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009 for his efforts to prevent nuclear proliferation.
Trump this time around didn't inherit a major us deployment in a conflict area. No Iraq, no Afghanistan. Also, he's doing military strikes by himself, no Congress involved.
Syrian and Libia were both essentially civil wars with an oppressive regime with Syria using allegedly chemical weapons.
Your source is a very weird site. Countries Obama bombed 2026??? What does that even mean. Is it just a typo in the main heading and the title?
Large scale deployments shifted under Obama to widescale bombing campaigns. The site mentions its various sources such as this [1] which mentions that Obama also increased the number of drone strikes by an order of magnitude relative to his predecessor. To be clear I'm not picking on Obama, but saying solely that this isn't a partisan issue. "They" all love war.
And places being in a state of internal conflict, conflict which is itself often backed and fomented by US intelligence agencies and backed proxy forces, is hardly some reason to go bomb them. Even moreso when you look at results. See what Libya turned into, and what Syria is now turning into. It turns out that Al Qaeda in a suit is still Al Qaeda, to literally nobody's surprise if you're even vaguely familiar with our history of backing extremists and putting them in power, something which we have done repeatedly.
This war, if it escalates, is not going to be good for Iran, the people of Iran, or likely even the US. The only country that might come out a winner is Israel, but even that might not end up being the case, as Iran's retaliation will likely focus on them. To say nothing of longer term consequences.
Drone strikes picked up, obviously as that technology became more and more mature. They're cheaper to operate and don't put a pilot in harms way. So that's kinda expected?
> And places being in a state of internal conflict, conflict which is itself often backed and fomented by US intelligence agencies and backed proxy forces
Not only that but it should be noted what the stated aim is of these strikes and earlier Trump strikes on Iran: take out the nuclear threat.
That nuclear threat was contained under a plan backed by US, EU, Russia, China and Iran, in which Iran would not pursue nuclear expansion and let a team of international experts in to verify this on a continuous basis, in exchange for some sanction relief. A solution Trump threw in the trash, reinstating the sanctions, pressuring Iran to pursue nuclear again as one of its few levers of power it can pull on.
In other words he created the necessity for violence by throwing away a unique solution that the entire world got behind including US allies & enemies, throwing away goodwill and trust in future deals (why would Iran negotiate now if it's clear how Trump views deals, as things to be broken even irrationally?)
Those who claim this is an anti-war president have no clue, even in the context of a 'just war' argument it simply falls flat.
Hard to say. Netanyahu has been calling for Iranian regime change since the 90s, and Trump is his most successful lobbying effort yet. US wants regime change, they just never saw a possibility. So the objective isn't new or driven by Epstein, perhaps the timing is though.
Even now most experts agree the chance of success is extremely small, every time this was tried you got shit returns (think Libya, still a failed state after Ghadaffi fell, and Iraq is reasonably stable now but we're 2 decades in and +1m dead Iraqis).
So it's certainly a useful distraction for Trump. It's also certainly true Trump would want to pursue this objective (despite it being a stupid move to reach it) regardless of the Epstein files.
Libya wasn't even remotely close to a failed state under Ghadaffi. Under Ghadaffi they had the highest gdp/capita and life expectancy in all of Africa, the highest human development index, lowest infant mortality, and more. Ghadaffi was working to create a unified African bloc to make Africa itself something of a geopolitical power. He was even working towards creating the 'African Gold Dinar' which was to be a gold backed currency which could replace the dollar in international exchange.
And he went quite quickly from being called a "critical partner in the fight against terror" to being overthrown and summarily murdered by US backed extremists, leaving Libya in a complete state of turmoil and deterioration, and even seeing the rise of organized slavery. [1] 'Regime change' in a nutshell.
I'd rather we held Trump accountable for his many crimes.
I find it astounding that the U.S. population aren't storming Washington and demanding his removal. Other countries are removing people from positions who were involved with Epstein due to the massive corruption and yet the USA seems fine with allowing Trump to continue destroying everything he touches.
Regarding intervention in Venezuela, is that seen as a mistep in the US? In the rest of America it is considered as a win, except of course by Cuba (Cubans are the most, almost the only, affected)
Regarding politicians: Gustavo Petro was the most vocal protester; now that Trump told him in the White house to shut up, he is wagging his tail happily.
The operation in Venezuela could be characterised as an enormous success in the sense that it didn't seem to do anything and therefore was a big improvement on most times the US activates its military. But it was still a misstep in the sense that it keeps US aggression top of mind without achieving very much.
My take, as an American: the outcome seems to be good - Maduro is out of power, his number 2 seems much more willing to play ball and from what I've read Venezuela's economy is now improving as money flowing in has turned around their previously out of control inflation. It managed to not flare into a full scale war, no Americans died - so I think approval is middle to high on it.
That said the justification for it made no sense to me and many others. Trump accused Maduro of narcoterrorism - profiting from the drug trade and violence. Where's the evidence? And the whole bit about the oil ... Usually that's the critique of US actions, not the reason we give; we should be moving full speed towards adopting renewables so an oil grab really doesn't make sense. Though Trump's energy policy has always been entirely backwards.
And we should probably also worry about the example we've set - that we'll just intervene when it suits us with a cooked up justification certainly incentivizes dangerous behavior - how many countries are now thinking about the deterrents they could acquire? But most Americans don't think about unintended consequences of laws or government actions.
One last thought re oil - the smart move would probably be to invest in Venezuelan oil not for sale in the US but for export to India and maybe Europe - try to use it as a replacement for Russian oil. That would in turn hurt Russia's economy and thereby reduce their efforts to wage war in Ukraine. But if that's the plan, Trump has never said that. And it also doesn't really fit his worldview that the Ukraine war should be Europe's problem and not the US's problem. But maybe it'll end up happening anyway, if Venezuela's oil production picks up and the US doesn't actually have the demand for it.
A war? Of course not. It’s a major combat operation. Only congress can declare wars. We haven’t had any in decades. They should call it the Dept. of Major Combat Operations.
It's not just the US, very few wars have been formally declared after WW2, because we all learned war is bad™, so we added more and more rules (both international and national) to make it harder to do it.
But the reasons wars existed didn't go away, so this just resulted in more and more people getting killed in "special military operations" or similar things. See e.g. "Why States No Longer Declare War"[0].
That article says that nowadays countries no longer declare war, because now there are a lot of international treaties that restrict what may be done during wars.
Not declaring war provides a workaround, allowing the states to do whatever they desire, without constraints, while avoiding being accused that they do not observe their obligations assumed internationally.
As soon a country agrees to enter a conflict on a side, which the original axes declare to be a war, it's at war. You can tell the media whatever you want of course.
The US didn’t declare war since WW2 because such a declaration would give the president disruptive powers (such as the power to seize factories).
In fact, after Vietnam war congress specifically created a law to restrict hostilities without congress approval to up to 60 days, which is what the current (and prior) administrations are acting on.
The occurrence of a war is a fact whether or not it is declared, and whether or not the actor waging war does so consistent with the legal requirements their nation's laws put on doing so.
Americans voted for no new wars, and especially no new wars in the sandbox, and they got a new war in the sandbox.
Americans really have to be among the most gullible people on the planet.
Not to mention that Trump is a paedophile, the open corruption, attempted coup etc... it's like that Hemingway quote. The decline of the USA has been gradual, and then very sudden.
I can't believe I have to say this on HN but no, the Iraq war was not started for Israel. Yes Netanyahu did testify before Congress but he was not testifying on behalf of Israel and the Israeli government quietly warned against invading Iraq.
I noticed that you somehow failed to mention 9/11, Colin Powell, George Bush or Osama Bin Laden, nor the fact that the Invasion has bipartisan support and was overwhelming popular with the American public.
Yes, thanks for confirming that the Iraq war was started because of Israel, and not oil. None of what you mentioned specifically discredits Israel as the primary cause of the Iraq war.
You guys really like revising history in realtime, huh? As if we didn’t live through that era ourselves. It was never a remote secret that Israel kept pushing the US to attack Iraq and had done so for years before 9/11, which Iraq had no part in anyhow.
I’m honestly perplexed. I had anticipated a scenario like “the US feared Iran was unstable and attacked to protect nuclear material”. It seems this would give them reasonable cover. I don’t see how Israel going along helps
While that's a funny thought, recently I stumbled across a sobering website [1].
This website lets you zoom in on the Ukraine-Russia battlefront and place Polymarket bets on land being taken by Russia. We may be closer to big private company betting on wars than we'd like to think.
There's an Israeli newspaper from 1984 saying it's a month away. Definitely more than a month passed between '84 and '92.
Btw. They ARE not that far away from the bomb, after they enriched uranium as a consequence of Trump (in his first term) cancelling the Obama treaty.
But they ARE a theocracy and Ajatollah Chamenei released an order (fatwa) forbidding Iran from obtaining and using an a-bomb. The new religious leader might change the religious law tho. I mean the one that comes after Chamenei becomes a martyr.
Funny how, knowing just a little bit more, it all really looks like nonsense created for illiterate, just to take their attention off of Epstein Pedophile Scandal.
The concept of nuclear brinkmanship is part of accepted WMD doctrine. A country can maintain a fixed short interval away from weaponization for decades. It is widely accepted that Iran does have a military nuclear program; the amount of material enriched, the enrichment level achieved and the hardening of the involved facilities are an open testament to that (there are many other intelligence signals that we are not privy to).
I think you're missing the point: a constant justification for bombing Iran is that they are one month, one week, or a couple months from building a nuclear bomb.
If that was true, obviously they would have built one buy now. Being one year away from building would be non-urgency inducing.
The constant lying about timelines does not imply Iran does not enrich uranium, but, as you remember, after the last bombing the leaders of the USA and Israel said they had completely obliterated Iran's nuclear program. Except, apparently After six months they are one week away from a nuke again.
This seems to indicate the USA should be bombing Iran every few weeks, forever, just in case they get a bit faster next time.
Except, when we don't have any scandal or other crisis going on, then Iran does not seem to be getting a nuke quickly. I wonder why.
> If that was true, obviously they would have built one buy now. Being one year away from building would be non-urgency inducing.
Reread your parent comment, the concept of a threshold nuclear state is that they are constantly a month away, for years.
That's the entire point, being effectively a nuclear state without holding a nuclear weapon
Yeah, it's a form of nuclear deterrence, one that does not need an actual nuclear weapon to sort of, kinda work.
The problem I have with this doctrine is that if it's supposed to deter an opponent who already has a nuclear deterrent, they may decide their deterrent is not so deterring anymore and actively go and use it against you.
The whole idea of nuclear deterrence relies on all parties being rational and sensible about nuclear weapons use, but I don't see a lot of rationality in the current eventuality.
I mean, we all understand this. We also all understand that "Iran is one week away from a nuclear weapon" is a so-stupid-its-amazing-it-works wordgame that is intended to fool the general public into thinking "wow! Well we better go in NOW!", because without qualifiers, it sounds like "they are literally going to have a bomb in one week if we DON'T go in now". If, however, the talking heads on CNN explained this ("Iran has stopped one week short of obtaining a nuclear weapon, they are holding there as a form of nuclear deterrence"), then the public would (rightly) realize that this is not really any different from what the USA does. The USA has this whole convoluted "defcon" system where we go from "20 minutes away from a nuclear weapon" to "the nuclear weapon is headed for you now". Hmm, sounds like the same strategy, with different steps.
During the election MAGA was yelling that Kamala Harris was going to bring us into war with Iran. They are real quiet now, as usual. Republicans are always the same, cut benefits to the poor, cut taxes on the rich, war with the Middle East. Every, single, time.
While I have no love for the Iranian regime I fear this will end up like the 'liberation' of Iraq: A massive power vacuum in an unstable Islamic regime.
What even is the plan here if the air assault fails? Boots on the ground? In Iran?
Your description of what happened in Iraq was exactly the point of why we invaded. Iraq and Iran were the two biggest threats to Israel, we got rid of Iraq and now we are removing the only other rival to Israel remaining in the Middle East.
After this, Israel, being the only nuclear power in the region and having massive funding from the American taxpayer, will dominate the entire region. This has always been the goal.
There is virtually no chance they will start a civil war, they are an ethnostate and the majority of their citizens are wholly in favor of continuing to expand.
>In August 2025, Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in an interview with i24NEWS that he was on a "historic and spiritual mission" and that he is "very" attached to the vision of Greater Israel, which includes Palestinian areas and possibly also places that are part of Jordan, Egypt, Syria, and Lebanon.
>Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich has suggested that Israel is destined to expand to include Jordan, and even beyond, to parts of Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt and even Iraq.
It is absolutely not a coincidence that most of the places mentioned in that list are also places that the US has been waging war for the past generation: Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt, Iraq.
>Hillel Weiss, a professor at Bar-Ilan University, has promoted the "necessity" of rebuilding the Temple and of Jewish rule over Greater Israel.[44][45][46] Francesca Albanese and Amos Goldberg have said that an aim towards a Greater Israel is a factor during the Gaza genocide.[47][48] According to Yoav Di-Capua, one of the beliefs of the Hardal movement is "the obligation to retrieve the biblical land of Israel in its entirety as a pre-requisite for collective redemption which heralds the arrival of the Messiah"
They are driven to continue taking land in the middle east because they have a religious belief that their Messiah will arrive when they fulfill the prophecy.
Who say US is not regime? It is the world largest regime in the world, with bidders in every country to do their bidding, mass surveillance including their own country men. People blame only Russia, China, Iran etc when US have been doing the same for years.
Regime just means ruling system. Western media prefers to use it as a shorthand for autocratic governments so it gotten a bad conotation, but any ruling system can be described as a regime, regardless of if you like it or not. The organization you work at has a "regime"
> I generally use 'regime' for autocratic governments
Which is fine.
"In theory, the term need not imply anything about the particular government to which it relates, and most social scientists use it in a normative and neutral manner. The term, though, can be used in a political context. It is used colloquially by some, such as government officials, media journalists, and policy makers, when referring to governments that they believe are repressive, undemocratic, or illegitimate or simply do not square with the person’s own view of the world. Used in this context, the concept of regime communicates a sense of ideological or moral disapproval or political opposition" [1].
There is no precise definition. English has many synonyms where the formal meaning is the same, but one is used pejoratively because it's acquired a bad association. Regime is like that, formally it just means the rule of a particular party or system. It can still be used neutrally if not denoting a government.
What even is the plan here if the air assault fails? Boots on the ground? In Iran?
Other than nukes that would be the only option if they can blast the doors to the underground military cities. They will have to do it fast as the ships will not sustain combat for more than 5 days with their current ammo per the pentagon.
That means refueling somehow and getting massive amounts of heavy munitions delivered. Meanwhile congress are trying to have an emergency war powers meeting to shut all this down. Whatever they have planned they better step it up.
I don’t think it’s possible to change regime without boots on the ground which is not currently considered. So there will be no power vacuum, at most Iran military will be weaken. It’s not a big win for the US but would allow Trump to safe face after his demands were essentially rejected.
Iraq was attacking its neighbors every couple of years, Iran is not.
Iran has shown that it is remarkably sane actually, given the aggression shown towards it by Israel and the US and has made a lot of efforts to reach a deal.
Remember, it was the US that exited the JCPOA and now it wants Iran to give up all its misses so that they would be defenseless.
I have no love for theocracies, but I do think the Iranian system is a lot better than the likes of Saudi Arabia, which we're buddy buddy with.
Oh and I guess the founder of Syrian branch of AQ and deputy head of ISIS running Syria is better that what was before too, in your book?
Oh yes, and the fact that Israel is just sitting there occupying millions of Palestinians, attacking Syria, Lebanon etc. despite a 'ceasefire' has nothing to do with why these groups continue to exist, I am sure.
Iran's funding for these groups is a part of its 'defense in depth' strategy since it doesn't have the capability to project power otherwise. I am not saying that it is the right thing to do, but I am also not that surprised that backed into a corner, they're trying to build regional proxies. It's not like the US and Israel are not doing the same in and around Iran.
But I like how these statements, like yours, are always made with zero context and hope for an uninformed audience to upvote them.
> Iran's funding for these groups is a part of its 'defense in depth' strategy
That's the rationalisation. Not a justification. Defence in depth was Hitler's rationale for invading Russia, is Israel's strategy for pacifying neighbors, and is Russia's excuse for invading Ukraine.
Creating weak neighbors is checklist-item one for any classical aspiring land empire. It's also tremendously destabilising to its neighbourhood. (It's not a coincidence that China and Russia are bordered by (a) shitshows or (b) countries militarily posturing against them.)
Ah yes, give any discussion enough time and Hitler inevitably gets to be whoever your opponent is.
Unlike Hitler, unlike Israel and unlike the US, Iran has not proactively attacked.
Hitler had no reason to fear attack from Russia, Czechoslovakia or France. Iran has every reason to fear an attack from the US and Israel, look at what is happening right now ffs.
Western governments provide funding and shelter for extremist Iranian groups like People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran and various separatists movements inside the country, so please spare me this Hitler nonsense.
> give any discussion enough time and Hitler inevitably gets to be whoever your opponent is
Because it fits. Nazi Germany was an aspiring land power. You can see the same effect in Imperial Rome and the Persian empires. (And, while America was conquering its own continent, on the peripheries of Manifest-Destiny America.)
> Unlike Hitler, unlike Israel and unlike the US, Iran has not proactively attacked
Of course they have. Its proxies are constantly proactively attacking everyone in their neighbourhood.
> Hitler had no reason to fear attack from Russia, Czechoslovakia or France. Iran has every reason to fear an attack from the US and Israel, look at what is happening right now ffs
Everyone has reason to fear attack from everyone. Defence in depth is a regionally-destabilising response to that security imperative. And by the way, Russia and Germany did wind up going to war with each other. Same as Iran and Israel, that same one whose anihiliation the former has been chanting for since its revolution.
Arguing Iran has been some peaceful country minding its own business is totally inaccurate.
At every step, for years, they've tried to de-escalate while Israel and the US launched direct attacks against them. Embassies bombed, that general in Iraq in 2020, last summer and now this. All of these attacks completely unprovoked except for the fact that they are friendly with Hamas and Hezbollah.
They are practically Gandhi in this story.
Looking forward, the problem with being irrationally hateful is that its irrational. What's the plan here? Persia will still exist, and its unlikely any future rulers will like Israel, given what's going on. So what's the win condition?
> Because it fits. Nazi Germany was an aspiring land power.
Look at the mass murder by Israel in Gaza. Or how the US just overthrew Venezuela and seized their resources, threatened to take Greenland, taunts Canada and suggests more countries are in their sights.
And now the two of them teamed up to bomb Iran, unprovoked, saying it's going to "annihilate their Navy" as their citizens run for cover.
And your conclusion is Iran is the one that resembles Nazi Germany?
> your conclusion is Iran is the one that resembles Nazi Germany?
In this strategic aspect, yes. So does Israel. So do Russia and China. They're all acting like land empires. And they're all pursuing a strategy that seeks weak, unstable neighbours.
It's a shitty strategy that does't earn one friends. The fact that it's theoretically coherent doesn't make it less shitty.
> by the way, Russia and Germany did wind up going to war with each other. Same as Iran and Israel,
Are you seriously arguing that Hitler was rational for preemptively attacking Russia because AFTER Hitler attacked Russia, Russia did not simply sit back and let itself be attacked but in fact started defending itself?
And are you arguing that Israel doing the same is rational because AFTER Israel attacked Iran, Iran launched some missiles towards Israel IN RESPONSE TO THE ISRAELI ATTACK, therefore proving Israel right that Iran is going to attack them?
> that same one whose anihiliation the former has been chanting for since its revolution.
Oh and Israel has been nothing but wishing them happy Ramadan?
The reason Israel does not want the current Iranian system to survive is because it sees it as the only possible threat to its eternal domination of the Palestinians and its ability to dictate its borders in the Middle East.
> Are you seriously arguing that Hitler was rational for preemptively attacking Russia because AFTER Hitler attacked Russia, Russia did not simply sit back and let itself be attacked but in fact started defending itself?
No. I'm saying Hitler's theory of attacking Russia was the same as Iran's simultaneous proxy wars with its entire neighbourhood. It's not theoretically wrong. Just antiquated, destructive and–in the trade-based modern world–increasingly counterproductive. (You're trashing and alienating your natural trading partners.)
And I'm drawing analogy between (a) "Iran has every reason to fear an attack from the US and Israel, look at what is happening right now" and (b) the nonsense argument "that Hitler was rational for preemptively attacking Russia because AFTER Hitler attacked Russia, Russia did not simply sit back and let itself be attacked." In both cases, retaliation is being used to justify the preceding (note: not initial) aggression.
> Oh and Israel has been nothing but wishing them happy Ramadan?
If your neighbour is developing ballistic missiles and explicitly calling for your anihilation, you're not going to "simply sit back and let [your]self be attacked."
> reason Israel does not want the current Iranian system to survive is because it sees it as the only possible threat to its eternal domination of the Palestinians and its ability to dictate its borders in the Middle East
Iran isn't a material threat to Israel's power projection into Gaza and the West Bank. Its ballistic missiles and nuclear programme, on the other hand, are an existential threat to Tel Aviv/Jerusalem. And yes, it's a regional competitor to Israeli (and Saudi and Emirati) hegemony.
> Iran's simultaneous proxy wars with its entire neighborhood
Except that's not happening and is complete BS. It also assumes these proxies have no agency and would not have acted on their own.
> It's not theoretically wrong. Just antiquated, destructive and–in the trade-based modern world–increasingly counterproductive. (You're trashing and alienating your natural trading partners.)
Guess what would allow Iran to peacefully trade with Israel. The end of Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories.
The reason Iran cannot simply ignore that occupation is because it would loose the moral high ground in the Shia/Muslim world. And having that moral high ground (i.e. its support for the Palestinian cause) is also part of its power projection strategy.
> If your neighbour is developing ballistic missiles and explicitly calling for your anihilation, you're not going to "simply sit back and let [your]self be attacked.
Given that Israel does indeed have ballistic missiles and is explicitly calling for for the annihilation of Palestinians, or even 'Arabs' in general, does that in your mind justify October 7th?
> Iran isn't a material threat to Israel's power projection into Gaza and the West Bank.
Not Iran itself, but Israel insists that Iran support for 'proxies' is. Maybe not to Israeli power projection, but to its security at least.
Iranian government massacres its own civilians whenever they dare to demand change. Iranians are also largely secular compared to citizens of most Arab states, and hate their government. They're also mostly Shia, which makes it hard for likes of ISIS and Al Qaeda to gain ground there, as Shias are enemies to Sunni extremists.
I believe there's a much better change of democracy / sane regime in Iran, than there ever was in Iraq and other Arab states.
Mossad was literally bragging that it is handing out weapons in Iran recently, but yes, Iran always 'attacks' for no reason and should not do anything no matter what happens right?
Same as the Gaza and Lebanon ceasefires where one side stops attacking and the other (Israel) keeps bombing?
That all being said, we are talking about different cultures. Iranians are on average more educated than Iraqis were/are, and the country is ethnically more homogeneous.
So I have hope that they'll find a way to organize when the current regime falls.
I know that, but what I don't get is with a society like that, how can a theocratic government last for so long? Maybe I'm being naive, but authoritarian governments tend to fall when an educated population is against them. Iran looks like a weird case to me in this respect in that the population seems to be against (and honestly, seems to be quite brave) and still the theocracy goes on and on.
Anyway, best of luck in this. Your people deserve better.
Yeah this is what lots of Western people don't get. The cultural / ideological gap between rulers and those being ruled appears much larger in Iran than in most other Muslim countries.
Many countries have hardcore conservative rulers AND population, but in Iran the problem is mostly just the rulers. With better government, Iran would have so much potential.
Yet another very recent account on HN claiming to be Persian and speaking about things on the ground in Iran. Can’t you guys at least try a little harder to be convincing?
I don't understand this. What you call bold claims are easily verifiable facts. Demographic and education level statistics are widely available online, choose your source of choice.
I'm pretty sure there are also a lot of people on this site that anecdotally know this from their contact with Iranian diaspora.
>What exactly do you imagine will replace the Iranian government that is worse?
A regime that only controls the capital, leaving the rest of the country in a power vacuum leading to internal conflicts and sectarian violence that will eventually spill over the borders into Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Iraq etc...
One of the issues with Iraq was that Rumsfeld didn't want to acknowledge that it takes more personnel post-toppling (to rebuild infrastructure and institutions) than during invasion. It seems like the current government could be prone to make the same mistake.
I recommend anyone interested in this to read Cobra II. It's an excellent book.
Its very much Muslim minority, but having even a few in senior government positions (e.g. Tariq Aziz, who was foreign minister) is an indication that its not a theocracy.
IT was a dictatorship, of course, but not a theocratic one.
what are you talking about? Iran is a sophisticated country with a parliament and elections, with a powerful civil society. It has 90 million inhabitants. They graduated more women in STEM disciplines than the USA. Yes, it's a theocracy, but it's more free than Saudi Arabia for instance.
Are the Americans going to bomb the Saudis next? or only if Israel ask for it?
The plan is a show of power. Trump will leave in 2 years, leaving much of the world in disarray because he had no plan whatsoever, and his staff is literally out of the movie Idiocracy. Nothing of lasting value will come out of the horrors that happened in the past 3 years, and in 10 years we (the world) will look back into the present with disbelief.
> in 10 years we will look back into the present with disbelief.
You mean in 10 years, when the US is a stable and high-functioning democracy with independent media, a universally liked, charming, and polite president, supported by both the right and the left, who finally manage to overcome their minor differences? Is... is this the direction this is all heading?
> in 10 years we (the world) will look back into the present with disbelief.
This is a very optimistic outlook, to the point of naivete, though I really hope you are right. In reality, neither Trump nor his cronies are acting like people who imagine they will be out of power anytime soon. In 10 years the world will likely still be dealing with the fallout of this administration, if not still dealing with the administration itself.
I think both will be true. We'll be dealing with the fallout of this administration and dealing with his goons and cronies for decades while still looking back at this time in disbelief and wondering how we ever let it happen and what needs to change to prevent it in the future.
Hot take: Trump's denialism of 2020 and the use of '3rd term' is so that they can make a case that he can have a '4th term' -- that the will of the people to elect him overrides the constitutional limits of Presidency.
The place has 90 million people, how do you even deal with this without throwing the whole place into chaos?
Besides, after this the collective west has no moral high-ground anymore, the global south will resent us more than ever. If other countries go to aggressive wars, our condemnation is worthless.
Trump is completely compromised and it was probably the powers that be who told them that this is how it is going to be.
> Besides, after this the collective west has no moral high-ground anymore
They never had any morals, all for their business gains look at Middle East, Africa and Asian countries where they were involved. Europe always looked other way when US does something and vise versa.
There is no such thing as the "global south" other than in the minds of westerners and westernised elites (and elites are getting less westernised). From a western viewpoint you can lump the rest of the world together, but it makes no sense from any other view point.
As for moral high ground. Compared to whom? China? Russia? Myanmar?
This shows a real ignorance about the true culture of Iran. It is not a Muslim culture. They want to install the son of the shah, and get back to pre-revolution culture.
But liberals will be quick to tell them they don't know best, better to just keep the oppressive ayatollah in power.
Maybe this is correct? I want this to be correct. But American entanglements in the Middle East have often overestimated the size of the “they” you’re referring to. There are many “they’s” in Iran, some of whom have been trained over time to hate the US.
So like, I think this is the right choice, but Trump was elected by MAGA to avoid these kind of entanglements even when it was the right thing to do. In fact, I think “liberals” (not progressive) support this action more than many on the right.
Traditional left/right is not useful to understanding people’s support of our foreign policy in 2026 America. Tucker Carlson will hate this way more than Chuck Schumer.
So replacing a fascist with western antagonism and constant threat on American allies, with a somewhat democratic, weak, and western aligned government?
I don't understand Iran, Hezbollah's and the Houthis' patience with the US actually. It's absolutely shocking. After the US betrayed ALL of it's own fucking allies, in what world does it make sense to negotiate with them?
The Houthis are still "threatening" to do things today after already being decimated and Hezbollah's strength more than halved.
I don't support any of these creeps but if any of them were minimally rational, they would have all gone to total war with Israel and the US the minute they realized what Hamas was doing on October 7th. They look even more naive than Europeans at this point.
The Iranians are pragmatic. Look beyond their relationship with the US. There are other state actors that Iran wants to remain in good relations with.
They understand that a defensive war is not the same as an offensive war. Besides, going on the offensive isn’t something they - as a regional power - have the firepower or diplomatic “street cred” for.
They are already painted as a so-called irrational actor. Doing something reckless will only prove their detractors right.
The other part to this is keeping the negotiation door open. The idea is to demonstrate to other state actors that they are cool headed & rational - even in wartime conditions.
> The Iranians are pragmatic. Look beyond their relationship with the US. There are other state actors that Iran wants to remain in good relations with.
Which is why they're sending missiles and drone strikes on the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Bahrain, Kuwait and Qatar.
Rational negotiations have to be based on the relative power of the parties.
It made sense for iran to try to negotiate with the US because the alternative was a war they had no chance to win. Arguably it also made sense for them to not come to an agreement because USA wanted concessesions the Iranian regime probably couldn't do while still staying in power given how weak they are domestically.
> I don't support any of these creeps but if any of them were minimally rational, they would have all gone to total war with Israel and the US the minute they realized what Hamas was doing on October 7th.
Israel's ability to divide and conqour its enemies here has been pretty impressive.
> It made sense for iran to try to negotiate with the US because the alternative was a war they had no chance to win.
They have no chance of winning no matter what. At least inflict some damage on your enemy while you die like Hamas chose (although I disagree with the fact that they chose that for a lot of innocent people too.)
The US isn't ever going to leave anyone, let alone Iran, alone. The options are a) fight and cease to exist and b) don't fight and cease to exist.
> The US isn't ever going to leave anyone, let alone Iran, alone. The options are a) fight and cease to exist and b) don't fight and cease to exist.
Oh boy, I see we learned nothing from Afghanistan. The US will eventually leave you alone, There will be a power vacuum, and the local warlord will rise to that opportunity.
The "military operations" don't end in decisive vistory. They end with death and destruction for the young men sent into battle, and more enemies in the surrounding areas.
The US hasn't left Afghanistan alone. They were driven out of the country by force. They are still attacking it in multiple different ways and will continue to do so until they are defeated. Time did not end when the US was kicked out. They aren't just going to give up their goals.
I do not understand what argument you are trying to make. Nowhere do I say that time stands still or that the US doesn't still have a policy for Afghanistan. I'm saying that the US (and her allies, my country among them), with their war machine the likes of which has never been seen, could not bring peace and democracy to Afghanistan. Once we left, and we will always have to leave eventually, the existing structures of opression once again asserted themselves.
My country and my Government, sent people from my generation down there to die. My countrymen died in that war, and the only thing we got out of it was more enemies in the region. The Afghan is still getting persecuted for styling their beard wrong, and the Afghan woman is still getting opressed. We have nothing to show for that sacrifice.
I see no reason to believe the same thing isn't going to happen in Iran.
> Once we left, and we will always have to leave eventually, the existing structures of opression once again asserted themselves.
The US keeps coming back is what I'm saying. The US was kicked out of Iran in 1953. That's what all this is about. They will do the same to Afghanistan eventually. That's what I meant by time didn't stop. The Taliban isn't safe by any means. It's just a temporary reprieve.
> with their war machine the likes of which has never been seen, could not bring peace and democracy to Afghanistan.
As far as i understand, the US propped up an unpopular governmet that many of the locals did not like (there were rumours about turning a blind eye to moral impropriety because it was politically expediant).
The thing about democracy is its not really democracy when forced from the outside.
> As far as i understand, the US propped up an unpopular governmet that many of the locals did not like
From what I've read it's not that simple. The American system was more well liked in the cities than the alternatives. Outside the big cities, which is most of Afghanistan, the government really didn't matter much. They were still dominated by local malitias, "elders", and gangs.
To add insult to injury, the US led effort to build up an internal defense force in the country found that the only people willing to fight for the country were the very same people who had fought for the Taliban only years before.
The question left unsaid of course is if all of these problems could have been solved by a more competent actor. I would argue they couldn't have, that you can't bring peace through war, but reasonable minds can disagree.
> The US isn't ever going to leave anyone, let alone Iran, alone. The options are a) fight and cease to exist and b) don't fight and cease to exist.
Well i think this is true in the present moment, i think its also important to recognize that we got to this point by a series of decisions that Iran made. They boxed themselves into this corner via long term strategic blunders.
E.g. if they threatened US & israeli interests less (i.e. did not support proxy groups), US and Israel probably wouldnt find it worth it to go this far. Alternatively if they paid more attention to the home front and kept their people happy, there would be less pressure for them to not lose face during negotiations which might allow them to make concessions they cant currently.
> At least inflict some damage on your enemy while you die like Hamas chose (although I disagree with the fact that they chose that for a lot of innocent people too.)
Ultimately? If the people who are going to kill you were elected into power by those "innocent people", why would you not lash out at them too? Some twisted sense of morality or taking the high road?
I don't know what you're talking about. It sounds like you might be saying Israelis who elected Likud (and the supporting parties) are not innocent. If that's what you mean, then I agree, but that wasn't what I was referring to.
I was speaking of the Gazans who originally elected Hamas to protect them but where Hamas eventually decided to sacrifice masses of them to achieve some of their goals. They knew what would happen and did it anyway, without the people's consent.
No such thing as total war with the USA. Without the means to nuke the USA out of existence, actually engaging them is suicide. Even if by some miracle you start winning, they can just nuke you back to the stone age, thereby ending the conflict.
Better to play the long game, corrupt them from within and wait for them to destroy themselves.
Could very well be that, on a diplomatic level, they're far more reasonable and forgiving than we've been lead to believe. Maybe in order to justify an aggressively adversarial posture against them and their interests.
But that's hard to grok without corroborating evidence. Like maybe an analogous social dynamic where the American mainstream maintains a hostile posture towards a particular ethnic group, stereotyping them as violent and irrational and criminals and parasites, and doing things to them that have triggered sustained, armed uprisings in other times and places, but who, in fact, have historically and in-aggregate been steadfast in a commitment to non-violent resistance, integration, and endurance of oppression.
Safe to say that this is the first time America's ever encountered that kind of thing, though, so I guess that we can be somewhat forgiven for not recognizing it.
> Could very well be that, on a diplomatic level, they're far more reasonable and forgiving than we've been lead to believe.
If you have been following Iran over the past two years (and even before), you would know that this is empirically true and not just a hypothetical. American propag- sorry, media does its job well.
> The world in which America is a military superpower.
No, you missed my point. Iran dies no matter what happens. Better go down after eliminating Israel, taking out a huge % of the world's oil supply and banging up some Americans. Instead they were extremely restrained, squandering their capacities.
> They have been. They've been getting levelled. If the U.S. can staunch the flow of arms to the Houthis, they'll become irrelevant, too.
> Better go down after eliminating Israel, taking out a huge % of the world's oil supply and banging up some Americans
One, they tried. They don’t have the capability. Two, that means more Iranians die. Cultures that choose pointless vengeance over pragmatic survival tend to get weeded out.
> One, they tried. They don’t have the capability.
No, they didn't, not at the peak of their power. They waited until many of their tools were hit and THEN responded. Everything they've done is unfortunately in self-defense after their capabilities have been extremely degraded. They sat around and waited for Israel to strike first every time.
> Two, that means more Iranians die. Cultures that choose pointless vengeance over pragmatic survival tend to get weeded out.
Again, you're missing the point. They are going to be weeded out no matter what.
> They waited until many of their tools were hit and THEN responded
In part. Khamenei also pointlessly spent down Hezbollah supporting Hamas instead of writing the latter off and saving his firepower. If Hezbollah had maintained its massive-launch capability, instead of drip feeding rockets into interceptors as a messaging exercise, maybe this would have gone differently.
More broadly, if Iran ran itself without a C-list vengeance plot at its core and focused on its massive resources, it could have developed economically and geopolitically.
Houthi and Huzb do not have the organized armies to wage long-term war where they conquer territories. Their game plan is long term annoyance (at high casualty costs) and co-existence within a “neutral” state that provides cover and logistics for them.
> Houthi and Huzb do not have the organized armies to wage long-term war where they conquer territories.
Hezbollah did. They did it before and they were predicted by all analysts to be able to do it again, which is why Israel took the route they did with the espionage, assassinations and terrorism instead of confronting them on the battlefields.
> Tell that to the 30k+ iranian protestors that were killed.
> Are you actually using "in good faith" and the current horrendous iranian regime in the same sentence?
If US needs to intervene, why are they are not intervening in Ukraine? Far worse things has been happening there for 4 years.
Is the argument that the U.S. should only militarily intervene when conflicts are internal within another country, as opposed to when it’s one country invading another? As that’s the opposite of the established international laws around prohibiting one state from attacking another vs the principle of non-intervention.
1. The Russian position in 2014 was that the Ukrainian people in Donbas were being oppressed by the new Ukrainian central government.
2. There's a lot of domestic political/information suppression in Ukraine but I consider this somewhat normal for a nation in a pretty existential conflict.
3. The Ukrainian military is 70-80% conscripts, increasingly of the "forcibly mobilized" variety (look up "TCC busification" for examples), with almost all military-age males banned from leaving the country. Dudes are getting beaten up, stuffed into vans, and sent to trenches to eat Russian artillery and FABs (air-to-ground bombs)....against their will. I think that definitely counts as suppression.
Lose. Evacuate the government. Then mount a guerrilla, and wait for an opportunity. It'll come, most likely sooner rather than later.
Why is that unthinkable? I can understand people in the US being unable to process such a scenario, but here in Europe, there's not a single nation that wasn't off the map for some time.
I know why Ukrainians don't want that, but the demographic costs of tens to hundreds of thousands of "military age men" dying are so huge that any plausible alternative should be considered, even if it's very unpleasant.
> I know why Ukrainians don't want that, but the demographic costs of tens to hundreds of thousands of "military age men" dying are so huge that any plausible alternative should be considered, even if it's very unpleasant.
And you imagine they won’t die in your guerrilla war? Or the next invasion after an emboldened Russia regroups?
You're suggesting a decades long guerrilla movement under occupation will be better for the Ukrainian people than conscription during an existential defensive war?
In terms of the number of lives lost? Yes. Guerrilla resistance is a way of trading important advantages (like control of the territory or political legitimacy) for time and human lives. Guerrillas in a favorable environment tend to suffer much lower casualties per fighter per unit of time than trench warfare along a frontline.
It's a desperate measure, but so is snatching people from the street to bus them off to trenches.
Personally, I think people can live through almost any hell (and can make a comeback later) - unless they die, in which case they can't do anything anymore. Decades of hard times, in this view, are preferable to tens of thousands of excess deaths per year over a decade.
I understand why people are reluctant to consider this - I'm just trying to show that there are alternatives to the current situation; not strictly better, but at least presenting different trade-offs. In a situation of "existential defensive war," we should discuss all plausible options, even the most controversial ones.
Not necessarily, if Ukraine surrenders then Russia will disarm them. Then when they revolt Russia will be able to bomb them with impunity because the resistance will not have the air defenses and manufacturing that the Ukrainian military now has.
Not to mention that Russia will almost certainly genocide or atleast severely oppress the Ukrainians if they win
EDIT: important to note that abandoning the trenches and the frontline does not mean surrendering, and I never said they should surrender! I suggested evacuating the govt and continuing the resistance with other means - I don't believe the actual surrender would do any good.
You're right - the risks are, of course, very significant. And we've been through that here in Poland, historically, like 3 times already. We've had quite a few failed uprisings, and we've had anti-communist guerrillas here for a while after WW2 - they were quickly (it still took 3-5 years, though!) dismantled, and most of them were killed. So the risks are real, and it is a "desperate measure".
On the other hand, it worked quite a few times: Cuba, Vietnam, Afghanistan all proved that it's possible to win (or at least not lose) using guerrilla tactics. In case of Ukraine, I think the circumstances would favor the resistance: Russia's already not doing well economically; the "severe oppression" of the Ukrainians (which I agree would follow) would cement the support for the resistance, and it would cost Russia a lot; Russia had air superiority since day one, and it didn't really help them much (it would be much more of a threat had Russia have US-level intelligence capabilities - but they domonstrably don't).
Yes, as long as it's possible, the conventional war should continue. At some point, though, the costs (all kinds of them) of continuing to fight in the field become so high that it's better to stop and switch to other ways of defending.
I'm not saying that moment is now - and it's not for me to dictate when it happens - I'm just trying to say that there are other ways of dealing with the aggressor that may (in favorable circumstances) lead to lower casualties without forgoing the hope of eventually winning. Which I wish Ukraine with all my heart, BTW.
The countries that got invaded by the US fought guerrilla because that is the only thing they could do. It wasn't some deliberate strategy to rope the US in.
And the only reason it worked out for them is that the US wasn't determined to create new states and had very low domestic support to begin with. That's not the case with Russia where this war is clearly a big deal to them.
> Every country with conscription will do this if you refuse to show up.
Was that MP a draft dodger? The issue isn't them picking draft dodgers, it's them picking up anybody that looks like they might be a draft dodger and the tactics they employ to do it.
> Would the citizens of a sovereign nation being forced to violate their Constitution by Putin and Trump be a “violation of human dignity” too?
If Ukraine was worth defending they would have no trouble finding men willing to die to defend it. It’s one of the most corrupt countries in the Western world, its women are being allowed to flee so that they can prostitute themselves to Arabs and Europeans, and it hasn’t had an election in 7 years. Zelensky attempted to take control of the country’s anticorruption bureau in July of 2025: “Many suggest the attempted purges are payback for NABU pursuing charges of illicit enrichment and abuse of office against former deputy prime minister Oleksiy Chernyshov, a key ally for the Office of the President.”[1] In November of 2025, Timur Mindich, a former business partner and close friend of Zelensky, fled to Israel after being accused of orchestrating a kickback operation in cooperation with ministers of Zelensky’s own government. [2][3].
You have the opportunity to go die for these people right now. An increasing number of men in Ukraine have decided they would prefer not to.
> So defeating the Nazis wasn't worth doing, because we had to draft to accomplish it?
What you are implying is that condemning conscription as a violation of human dignity would necessarily lead me to condemn the actions that led to the downfall of a regime that itself engaged in conscription. Your mistake is in thinking that one necessarily follows from the other. I could condemn the specific act of conscription while considering the acts of the Allies in general as morally desirable, I could take a utilitarian approach and say that conscription is infinitely undesirable but the Nazis were infinitely undesirable + 1, or (as is my actual position), I can simply say that both regimes engaged in acts of evil that I am unwilling to dignify by calling “necessary.”
Issues of moral judgement are pass-fail. An act is good or it isn’t. This manner of thinking does not require you to create a gradation between the stranger who tries to rape you and the stranger that tries to kill you; they are both simply behaving immorally. The Rape of Nanjing was wrong; it did not justify the civilian deaths that occurred during the nuclear strikes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
> Wouldn't the alternative be "A violation of human dignity"? Forced confinement in a war zone?
The discussion we are having is operating from the reality that Ukrainian men are being conscripted. If a man can be compelled to serve his country (I reject this premise), it follows that a woman ought to be compelled to serve as well. The conventional justification for exempting women from conscription has been that they are necessary for the nation to reproduce itself. But the majority of these women are not likely to return to Ukraine, so what is the point of treating them any differently from the men if they are already a guaranteed loss?
This is all tangential to the point I was making; you completely ignored the corruption scandals I mentioned.
> You really should make up your mind here.
You’ve been posting here too long to think that this sort of behavior conforms to the site guidelines. I have showed great restraint in writing this reply despite your inconsiderate behavior. My next reminder will not be polite.
What does the Iranian say? If we're all about respecting documents, we should make sure we assess them all equally. The U.S. constitution has a lot to say about many of the things that are happening right now, but those are being happily ignored. We can't even respect our own constitution, the idea that we'd respect others is laughable.
How do you even securely hold an election during a full scale war? Thousands are outside the country or on the front lines. You'd also be creating huge targets at polling stations. Luckily their constitution recognises it's a bad idea to try.
It's nothing to do with Iran being bad or good. US and Iran were negotiating. You don't attack mid negotiation when you're supposedly still trying to fix things by talking.
You might think Iran isn't owed the courtesy of fair negotiation but that's very shortsighted. Next country will not take US's negotiations seriously and will be, frankly, at some level justified in shooting first.
That is utter BS. If you stop negotiating in order to attack, then you are giving the enemy the advantage of knowing exactly when you will attack. This is one of the most incompetent takes I have ever heard - so much that I have to wonder if you are an Iranian agent
US sanctions, US/Moss instigates, makes the Iranis desparate. Irani regime (that is the result of US intervention decades ago) digs in and toughens up.
People die in the streets.
Who's to blame? The Irani regime? C'mon...
It's like crashing your car into a tree and and blaming the tree.
Also: you really think the US/Moss care about dead Iranis in the streets, other than it being a useful pretext to go to war?
It's a cuban-missle-crisis like moment for Russia. And they act accordingly.
I'm not in favor of one or the other: I just notice imperialism when I see it. And Russia+Iran have been much less aggressive than the "allied western forces" for the last 60 years, while they have a lot of reasons to dig in and toughen up not to become the next Libya/Iraq/Syria/etc.
I'd have been sympathetic to that argument up until a few hours ago.
But it turns out that they were actually negotiating in better faith than their counter-party, who have just launched a war whilst still claiming to be interested in a peaceful settlement.
> I'd have been sympathetic to that argument up until a few hours ago
These are somewhat independent variables. America was open about the fact that we were trying diplomacy before force. Either, one or no sides could have been negotiating in good faith and still wound up here with that setup.
If someone takes the first underhanded step, it’s not on the victim to make amends. Iran got burned on JCPOA. Whether we like them or not, you have to address that first before moving on to meaningful talks.
> ran got burned on JCPOA. Whether we like them or not, you have to address that first before moving on to meaningful talks
Sure. I think it was probably politically impossible for Iran to negotiate in good faith. That doesn't change that they were not negotiating in good faith.
no it doesn't "turn out that". They have a long history of hiding their nuke tech and lying while also issuing death threats to israel. Trust but verify doesn't work with this country.
> you don't need an analyst to see who strikes first (and the frequency of that pattern) while diplomats are still at the negotiating table
Of course you do. If the diplomats' job is to stall and never make any actual concessions, that's germane. My understanding is there was a genuine desire for diplomacy on the American side. But at least this round, Tehran never conceded on any material fronts.
> If the diplomats' job is to stall and never make any actual concessions, that's germane.
does this line of reasoning apply to the US only, or in general?
> My understanding is there was a genuine desire for diplomacy on the American side. But at least this round, Tehran never conceded on any material fronts.
they had an option to do it and still continue a diplomatic track, they aren't obliged to devote themselves to the US preferences at the US-preferred pace.
Ok, there's clarity on the side approaching negotiations in bad faith then. "Do as I say and when I say" is not a reasonable negotiating track, it's the final ultimatum and there's clarity on who's the aggressor too.
> does this line of reasoning apply to the US only, or in general?
Are you asking serious questions? I think the evidence shows the U.S. was negotiating in good faith in the beginning (and I'm scoping to this round of negotiations only). And then it concluded there was no deal to be had, and we probably started bullshitting as well. At the same time, I think the evidence shows the Iranian side was mostly bullshitting the whole time.
> they had an option to do it and still continue a diplomatic track
Well sure. We also had the option to terminate negotiations, ratchet up sanctions and walk away. None of that changes that the Iranians weren't negotiating in good faith. (Again, based on what I've seen. Open to changing my mind. But the lack of any discussion of what Iran did in this subthread seems to underline my point.)
> they aren't obliged to devote themselves to the US preferences at the US-preferred pace
War is politics by other means. They aren't obligated to accept the other's timeline. But I wouldn't say that's negotiating either realistically or in good faith–you can't just ignore material variables because you don't like that they exist.
Just answer the question whether it applies in general as a principle. Don't "stall and never tell any actual" position on the matter.
> We also had the option to terminate negotiations, ratchet up sanctions and walk away. None of that changes that the Iranians weren't negotiating in good faith
Only according to you, based on the premise that someone didn't meet random timings that only exist in your head.
> But the lack of any discussion of what Iran did in this subthread seems to underline my point
not really, please answer the initial question I asked.
> They aren't obligated to accept the other's timeline. But I wouldn't say that's negotiating in good faith.
Exactly why? You need to be home around 5 so anyone standing in front of you and blocking you in a traffic jam aren't acting in good faith?
> Only according to you, based on the premise that someone didn't meet random timings that only exist in your head
I literally opened the top comment asking for any credible analysis that said the Iranians were negotiating in good faith. I haven't seen anything in any English, European or Asian sources that seemed to suggest they were.
So far, the only one I'm seeing arguing Iran was ready to do anything material is the Omani foreign minister. (I'm keeping an eye out for his substantiation on this point.)
> please answer the initial question I asked
Read past "are you asking serious questions." I literally answer it.
> Exactly why?
Negotiating in good faith means negotiating with a genuine intent to reach a deal. That requires acknowledging what the other side is saying and respecting reality. Someone can intentionally bullshit. Or they can be forced to bullshit because their regime at home has to save face and doesn't think it can survive being seen as giving in to America. Either way, bad faith.
> You need to be home around 5 so anyone standing in front of you and blocking you in a traffic jam aren't acting in good faith?
Bad analogy. Here's a better one: you're my landlord and I'm your tenant. (Ignoring the power imbalance between Iran and America, particularly when America is parking warships, is delusional.) You say I have ten minutes to plead for not being evicted. I genuinely don't think I did anything wrong. But I spend ten minutes talking about why your shoes are stupid. That's not engaging in good faith.
> Read past "are you asking serious questions." I literally answer it.
ok, you evaded the answer, I asked specifically about generality of the principle, you kept saying "the US did this, Iran did that". You're stalling and refusing to tell the actual answer on the question I asked, so that's germane.
> I haven't seen anything in any English, European or Asian sources that seemed to suggest they were.
too bad, get better with search
> Negotiating in good faith means negotiating with a genuine intent to reach a deal. That requires acknowledging what the other side is saying and respecting reality. Someone can intentionally bullshit. Or they can be forced to bullshit because their regime at home has to save face and doesn't think it can survive being seen as giving in to America.
Negotiating in good faith means negotiating with a genuine intent to reach a deal. That requires acknowledging what the other side is saying and respecting reality. Someone can intentionally bullshit. Or they can be forced to bullshit because their political leaders at home have to save face before their donors and don't think they can survive elections being seen as giving in to Iran.
> Bad analogy. Here's a better one: you're my landlord and I'm your tenant. (Ignoring the power imbalance between Iran and America, particularly when America is parking warships, is delusional.) You say I have ten minutes to plead for not being evicted. I genuinely don't think I did anything wrong. But I spend ten minutes talking about why your shoes are stupid. That's not engaging in good faith.
Bad analogy, I walk barefoot and I don't talk to tenants, my representatives do and they end the contract with you on a legal basis of contractual terms and that's about it. That's my property after all.
Now, you in turn are still standing in a traffic jam and getting angry at me and people around you, you claim that we all don't respect your preferences and timings, so we must be acting in bad faith.
> I asked specifically about generality of the principle, you kept saying "the US did this, Iran did that". You're stalling and refusing to tell the actual answer on the question I asked
Uh sure, yes, it generalizes. Not sure what that does for you, but yes.
> get better with search
...do you have a source? The fact that nobody in this subthread has an answer to this and is instead, as you put it, evading the question by getting distracted by whether America is negotiating in good faith should speak volumes to anyone reading this.
> Uh sure, yes, it generalizes. Not sure what that does for you, but yes.
ok, let's see
> do you have a source? The fact that nobody in this subthread has an answer to this and is instead, as you put it, evading the question by getting distracted by whether America is negotiating in good faith should speak volumes to anyone reading this.
No it shouldn't, there's no substance in your position, let alone volumes of any meaning to derive from it: "the other side must be acting in bad faith, because I don't like getting home late".
First off, I'm waiting for you to apply your previously stated principle, that you admitted to be general, to Iranian diplomats' negotiating track. And right after that, let's discuss why you did omit commenting on the other part with the substitutions around "giving in to America or Iran" and the respective interest groups having to save face.
I, as a barefoot landlord, am still wondering: why do you think your timings and preferences are the only ones to be respected?
> I'm waiting for you to apply your previously stated principle, that you admitted to be general, to Iranian diplomats' negotiating track
I've applied it. (That's why you asked for a general principle. Because I'd applied it to this specific case.) They have not been negotiating in good faith.
A case you've sustained by being unable to find any credible sources arguing Iran was negotiating in good faith.
> I've applied it. (That's why you asked for a general principle. Because I'd applied it to this specific case.) They have not been negotiating in good faith.
> My understanding is there was a genuine desire for diplomacy on the American side.
> A case you've sustained by being unable to find any credible sources
Correction: you were unable to find any credible sources, that could be your intentional bias though, as there are other patterns in your replies that suggest it too.
Also, you didn't apply the principle, you sought external validation to your preferred understanding. You appeal to external voices because there's the evident apprehension to come to inconvenient conclusions if you begin applying the principle uniformly by using your own mind.
Actually, let's see it live. Please provide the line of reasoning, starting with "If the US diplomats' job is to stall and never make any actual concessions to Iran, then ..."
> there was a genuine desire for diplomacy on the American side
By the way, how does that "genuine desire" manifest in reality? I hope it's not "I got those people in front of me extra five minutes to get lost and free my way home"
Then the US can formally state that it is ceasing all negotiations. But it will never do that - it always wants to retain the ability to execute a surprise backstab. Done so several times now.
"If the diplomats' job is to stall and never make any actual concessions, that's germane."
As we have now learnt, this statement is utterly invalid.
Oman's top diplomat reported that negotiations were progressing quite well. They were dismayed at the American strikes. I am guessing Trump really wanted the negotiations to fail and was pissed off when Iran actually agreed to his major terms. So he launched the strikes, before the news could spread.
“Significant progress” had been made during talks in Geneva, Omani Foreign Minister Badr al-Busaidi said on Friday. His country mediated negotiations between the United States and Iran, with the latter offering assurances that it would not seek to acquire nuclear material for the production of an atomic bomb. This commitment was a “very important breakthrough” that had “never been achieved any time before,” al-Busaidi told US broadcaster CBS News, in addition to making a similar statement on X.
Not a slight against you personally, but it's genuinely frustrating discussing this with people who don't actually follow the conflict. Thank you for probing in an inquisitive manner, but please question the state propaganda, which I'm sad to say includes just about every mainstream outlet.
They're interchangeable the USA and Israel, especially at this time.
Of course I mean at the state level. Individuals is a very different story.
---
Hit the rate limit so I'm attaching my response to the comment below here.
---
Fair enough. I let the current situation cloud my vision, but I genuinely mean they're interchangeable. You can look up the involvement of people like Kushner, Witkoff, Barak with Israel and see where they sit in our government. Leaving aside the major donors.
If you listen to statements made by the USG spokespeople, they literally throw US servicemen under the bus to shield the IDF. That goes both for this admin and the last.
In the previous admin, it was Biden and Blinken that made a break impossible, despite landing on different political sides from Netanyahu. Another president would have cut them off at some point.
Obama was the only one who charted an independent path in recent years (post Bush. Sr.)
> They're interchangeable the USA and Israel, especially at this time
If America and Israel are interchangeable, so are Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas and the Houthis. That–I believe–is an overly simplistic approach, particularly when treating even Iran as a cohesive political entity is theoretically fraught.
It is still unhinged, but not because of nuclear weapons. Ukraine, and now Iran, showed the whole world what happens when you don’t have a nuclear deterrence.
I think the unhinged rhetoric is, in part, a necessary partner of the nukes. Because you need to not only have nukes but have your adversaries believe that you won't hesitate to use them. If North Korea had nukes, but the US didn't believe they would use them, then they'd be getting the Iran, Syria, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, etc, etc, etc treatment.
The claim has always been made that attacking NK was off the table anyway, because they have obscene numbers of conventional artillery pointed directly at SK's capital and largest population centre, right across the DMZ; even the fastest decapitation strike wouldn't have prevented Seoul from getting flattened. Nukes definitely don't hurt but I'm not actually sure NK needed the bomb as an additional deterrent.
North Korea didn't acquire nukes to protect itself from the US, it got them to protect its regime from China. It began pursuing nukes in the 80s once its original safeguard against China, its alliance with the Soviet Union, started showing signs it would not be a viable long term strategy.
The anti-US spiel is just rhetoric. It helps save face when dealing with China, which it still utterly depends on, and it goes along with decades of internal propaganda lionizing China to its own people. Indeed North Korea wants heavy US military presence in the region, maintaining its status with regards to China as a strategically important buffer state which can act with plausible deniability instead of a resource rich neighbor with uncooperative leadership.
If North Korea only had conventional forces, what would stop China from installing a loyal puppet? The international community wouldn't lift a finger, threats to South Korea would only further alienate the regime, China could bring its full might to bear, the DPRK military would have no effective means to retaliate and would be more likely to turn on the regime than mount a credible defense, and North Korea's own people would probably welcome the change which would dramatically reduce oppression and increase prosperity. Nukes are the only way for a small number of regime loyalists to make such an operation too costly for Beijing to justify.
This is also why talks with the US have utterly "failed" for decades - there is nothing the US can offer that would provide the same security guarantee for the regime and the status quo is advantageous to the US for multiple reasons: justifying its large military presence in the region, justifying its efforts to develop and deploy ever more capable ballistic missile defense systems, and North Korea not being completely under China's control.
NK didn’t get nuclear weapons until several years after the invasion of Iraq, and it was probably longer still before they had a viable delivery system. The nukes clearly aren’t the only reason they’re left alone.
I mean, nothing unhinged here, nukes are only ever useful if other countries believe you will use them when attacked. Same thing for North Korea as the US, France, etc. (Well, nuclear war is unhinged, but...).
It’s good for them. That’s the point they’re making. All this shows that for many countries nuclear proliferation is the way to guarantee their safety.
The people arent being pppressed by the bomb, but by their leaders. The odea that the US would liberate all peoples from tyranical rulers is naive. The US routinely installs and supports tyrants who allign with their geopolitical goals. Pol pot, pahlavi, pinochet, marcos, suharto, seko, the banana republics. Nukes didnt enable those guys, the US did
Safety for whomever controls the nukes, whether autocratic (Iran) or democratic (Ukraine).
Russia would not have attacked Ukraine if they still had their nuclear weapons and Iran wouldn’t be under attack now if they had them too.
I’m not saying whether it’s goods or bad that any or specific countries have nuclear weapons, that’s beside the point. The point is that this attack sends the signal that the only way to guarantee your safety is to have them.
Maybe after the civil war, certainly not during it. If I had to pick where to live, I'd pick North Korea over Ukraine right now because it's a lot easier to live in a dictatorship than an active war zone. (This isn't me saying I want to live in NK, I don't).
But I'd also point out that a lot of what makes it really suck to live in the worst places in the world isn't often the government but rather the international relationships. Turkey has a particularly brutal government, but it's Nato and EU ally status means that the civilians enjoy modern trade and travel.
The worst times to be in NK was the 90s when there was an ongoing famine and the US refused to lift sanctions thinking it'd spark a civil war that overthrew the regime. It didn't.
>I'd pick North Korea over Ukraine right now because it's a lot easier to live in a dictatorship than an active war zone
You can live a perfectly normal life in Kiev. It’s not exactly an active war zone, you see luxury cars worth hundreds of thousands of dollars on every corner. You can buy bottles of Petrus in 24 hour supermarkets and eat decent food at countless fancy restaurants.
Goodwine in Kiev will also put US luxury grocers to shame. Ukraine might be at war, but the quality of life is hardly bad.
> I'd pick North Korea over Ukraine right now because it's a lot easier to live in a dictatorship than an active war zone
To each their own. I wouldn't. In part because once you're in North Korea, you're not getting out. That isn't the case for Ukraine, Syria or any of the other war-torn countries.
It'd depend on my status. There are a lot of people who can't just get out of Ukraine or Syria. The average citizen in Syria had no means to just flee. I'd assume in my above scenario that I'm one of the masses that can't escape.
NK does actually allow people to leave, mostly to china and mostly after they attain a high social class. A decent number of tourists, including US citizens, go on tours of NK.
You're making the mistake of correlating these proxy wars with any later improvements in these countries' living conditions. War is always detrimental to quality of life.
> You're making the mistake of correlating these proxy wars with any later improvements in these countries' living conditions
...nobody argued the proxy wars were good for those countries. Just that if you're turned into a random local in one of those theatres, chances are you're better off a decade or two later than if you're turned into a random North Korean.
> If you had to live in gaza or north korea right now, which would you choose?
Me as me? Gaza. Because I'd get out. That's a bullshit answer, though, so I'll answer as a local. And there, it's honestly a coin toss because Gaza is possibly the shittiest war zone outside Africa right now. But if you said North Korea or Syria during its civil war? North Korea or Myanmar? I'm going with not Pyongyang.
The only one where I'd honestly choose North Korea hands down is Sudan, because that's the one nobody really gives a shit about which means it's going to go on forever.
> How would you get out? It’s impossible. Every exit is shut.
Of course it isn't, it's entirely porous to the IDF. I'm an American citizen. If I were teleported to Gaza I'd probably be fine. At material risk of being fucked up. But I'd take my chances there over being an American teleported to North Korea.
Any attempt to walk towards a controlled point or border will get you shot inside 2-3km. Your passport will be removed from your body before it is destroyed. You were never there.
Sure. And yes, it's risky. But there are two million people in Gaza and half a dozen to a dozen, on average, being killed each day. If I, literally I, were teleported into Gaza, my primary operational concern would be avoiding Hamas. (My primary operational goal, getting to an internet-connected device.)
War isn't glamorous. It's mechanized death and torture destroying communities, families, and loved ones. And when it's powered by foreign governments, it's worse. Because the two colliding sides are armed to the gills with the best weapons in murder along with mercenaries and no oversight.
Living in a dictatorship is hard but doable, There are literally generations of people that have survived and thrived in that sort of an environment. It's not preferable, for sure, but you still have your family, friends, and neighbors. None of them are trying to actively kill you. So long as you follow the rules, life in a dictatorship is generally predicable and the odds of the state making you specifically an example are low.
The only people who thrive in a dictatorship are its enforcers. And by the way a dictatorship needs quite a lot of them. That's how, decades after its fall, you get voices saying it wasn't all that bad, there were some nice things actually, or we should do it again.
And also your neighbors absolutely will sell you out.
I agree. A foreign powered civil war is worse than that.
Thriving in a dictatorship, even not as an enforcer, is possible. It's a worse life in general but still a life you can live.
Generally speaking, the only life that truly sucks in a dictatorship is if you become an enemy of the state. That doesn't generally apply to all citizens because, if it did, a dicatorship would quickly end in revolt. That is the theory behind strong sanctions. It's believed that if you starve a nation eventually the citizens revolt. The problem is it takes little resources to keep people happy, ultimately.
So if a dictatorship decides to invade a neighboring democratic country, the people there should not fight and let them take over, because war is worse than dictatorship, right?
A authoritarian regime starting wars isn't one I want to live in either. That's why I don't want to live in Israel.
Iran has had civil unrest over the last year, they weren't in the position politically to be doing much of anything to the "democracy" of Israel.
The entire reason for the US Israel attack on Iran is because of that civil unrest, not because Iran was a threat, but because both nations see an opportunity to install a puppet government that does their bidding.
What remains to be seen is if Russia sees a similar opportunity and we end up with another Syria.
Sorry if my answer seemed evasive. I was reading into your question something not stated
> the people there should not fight and let them take over, because war is worse than dictatorship, right?
No, I think the people should fight back, obviously. A country being actively invaded has a right to fight back. The war isn't their choosing and laying down arms is a mistake because captured civilians are rarely treated well after a war.
I'm specifically talking about an established dictatorship vs war. Specifically, as I said, a civil war which is a proxy war for foreign agents. Starting a war to end a dictatorship is bad. A dictatorship starting a war is bad. However, a dictatorship not starting wars is ultimately a better place to live vs anywhere under and active civil war.
The fact that NK possess nuclear weapons strongly discourages external players from attacking it. It does not in any way change the tools NK has at its disposal domestically.
If you're trying to say that had NK not had nukes we would bomb it for 'humanitarian purposes' or 'on behalf of its people' then I have a couple of bridges for sale.
> If you're trying to say that had NK not had nukes we would bomb it for 'humanitarian purposes' or 'on behalf of its people' then I have a couple of bridges for sale.
You think the US would just leave them alone as a communist, sovereign country without nukes, bordering china???
Theyve had the bomb for a while and south korea still exists and is thriving. I have seen alot of batshit insane talk from them, but no real negative consequences for any other country. So it hasnt really been a negative for anyone. I dont think theyll use it first either because they know theyll be glassed if they do
Now if they didnt have the bomb, i dont think they would have lasted this long. I think the US would have gone and "democratized" them to smithereens a while ago.
Nuclear weapons have a very brief transition from “everything is fine and nothing bad has happened” to “we’re completely fucked.” The fact that nothing has happened yet isn’t very reassuring to me with all the ways things can go wrong. The threat of retaliation certainly puts a damper on a first strike, but there’s always the possibility of a mistake, someone feeling backed into a corner, or not believing the consequences, or just going a little crazy. The more countries that have them, the more likely this becomes.
Usually an invasion entails an intent to capture territory and occupy. A suicide terror attack is qualitatively different even if it’s large-scale. The boots on the ground could just as well have been rockets, whereas an invasion needs a longer term presence.
The last time Israel faced an existential threat from its neighbors was 1973. The timeline isn’t entirely clear, but that’s right around the time when they started to have operational nuclear weapons. Many factors contributed to their relative safety since then, but the timing certainly works out for nuclear weapons helping to make that true.
"In the world of strategic studies, there has been a return to ‘theories of [nuclear] victory’. Their proponents draw on the work of past scholars such as Henry Kissinger, who wondered in his 1957 book Nuclear Weapons and Foreign Policy if extending the American deterrent to all of Europe at a time when the threat of total destruction hung over the US itself would actually work: ‘A reliance on all-out war as the chief deterrent saps our system of alliances in two ways: either our allies feel that any military effort on their part is unnecessary or they may be led to the conviction that peace is preferable to war even on terms almost akin to surrender ... As the implication of all-out war with modern weapons become better understood ... it is not reasonable to assume that the United Kingdom, and even more the United States, would be prepared to commit suicide in order to defend a particular area ... whatever its importance, to an enemy’.
One of the recommended solutions was to bring tactical nuclear weapons back into the dialectic of deterrence extended to allied territories, so as to give US decision makers a range of options between Armageddon and defeat without a war. Global deterrence was ‘restored’ by creating additional rungs on the ladder of escalation, which were supposed to enable a sub-apocalyptic deterrence dialogue — before one major adversary or the other felt its key interests were threatened and resorted to extreme measures. Many theorists in the 1970s took this logic further, in particular Colin Gray in a 1979 article, now back in fashion, titled ‘Nuclear Strategy: the case for a theory of victory’.
...
In 2018 Admiral Pierre Vandier, now chief of staff of the French navy, offered a precise definition of this shift to the new strategic era, which has begun with Russia’s invasion: ‘A number of indicators suggest that we are entering a new era, a Third Nuclear Age, following the first, defined by mutual deterrence between the two superpowers, and the second, which raised hopes of a total and definitive elimination of nuclear weapons after the cold war’" [1].
I think the chances we see a tactial nuclear exchange in our lifetimes has gone from distant to almost certain.
Now that the last generation with direct experience of the Nazis is leaving us, it seems like the populace is forgetting the horrors of that time. That also happens to be the last generation with direct experience of nuclear weapons used in war.
1. According to the US and Israel, Iran has been a week away from having nuclear weapons for at least 34 years [1];
2. It's quite clear Iran could've developed nuclear weapons but chose not to. I actually think was a mistake. The real lesson from the so-called War on Terror was that only nuclear weapons will preserve your regime (ie Norht Korea);
3. Israel is a nuclear power. It's widely believed that Israel first obtained weapons grade Uranium by stealing it from the US in the 1960s [2];
4. In a just world, people would hang for what we did to Iran in 1953, 1978-79, the Iran-Iraq War and sanctions (which are a sanitized way of saying "we're starving you"); and
5. The current round of demands include Iran dismantling its ballistic missile program. This is because the 12 day war was a strategic and military disaster for the US and Israel.
Israel has a multi-layered missile defence shield. People usually talk about Iron Dome but that's just for shooting down small rockets. Separate layers exist for long-range and ballistic missiles (eg David's Sling, Arrow-2, Arrow-3). In recent times the US has complemented these with the ship-borne THAAD system.
Even with all this protection, Iran responded to the unprovoked attacks of the 12-day war by sending just enough ballistic missiles to overwhelm the defences, basically saying "if we have to, we can hit Israel".
Many suspect that the real reason the US negotiated an end to the 12 day war was because both Israel and the US were running cirtically low on the munitions for THAAD and Israel's missile defence shield. You can't just quickly make more either. Reportedly that will take over a year to get replacements.
Thing is, pretty much all of this missile defence technology is about to become obsolete once hypersonic missiles become more widespread, which is going to happen pretty soon. I suspect that's a big part of why the US and Israel are now trying so desperately to topple the regime and turn Iran into a fail-state like Somalia or Yemen.
I'm not normally one to encourage nuclear proliferation but when it's the only thing the US will listen to, what choice do countries have?
Yes, because "what choice did Iran have" other than:
1. Routinely calling for death to Israel and America, turning it into part of the national curriculum and sowing hate
2. Funding, training, supplying and directing multiple violent proxy organizations around the region which attacked Israel and undermined their own countries (Hezbollah in Lebanon and Syria, Houthis in Yemen, Hamas in West Bank and Gaza, other organizations in Iraq)
3. Enriching Uranium to clearly non-civilian grade in multiple militarily hardened facilities;
4. Directly attacking multiple Jewish targets around the world (like the AMIA and then embassy bombings in Argentina)
5. Attacking neighboring countries with ballistic and cruise missiles, like the attacks on Saudi Aramco in 2019
6. Holding international shipping and energy markets hostage by threatening to attack ships and tankers in the Persian Gulf
7. Abusing their own citizens, including public executions, persecutions and extreme violence
8. Providing support to Russia in their efforts in Ukraine, and especially drones used for indiscriminate dumb attack waves against civilians and infrastructure
Now we have people arguing that if they had just gotten nukes then they could have continued doing all of that.
Probably in all of it. Iran wouldn't have a MAD arsenal, they'd have a small handful that they could pop on a ballistic. We know we can shoot down Iran's missiles. And we know they can't reach America. I'm entirely unconvinced that we wouldn't have launched an attack on Iran even if they had nuclear weapons, because we think we can intercept them, and if we can't, they aren't hitting the homeland.
And on the off chance this defense doesn’t work? No system is perfect. Put another way, would the risk calculation for an attack on Iran be as easy as it is right now?
The point of having nuclear capabilities is to make the risk calculation more difficult. It doesn’t mean you need to have state of the art capabilities.
Assuming I get your point, I would nevertheless say I think most White House admins would care: would not one of those someones in the Middle East who gets hit perhaps include Israel?
I have no idea what strategic value the nation of Israel has for the nation of the USA, but there is clearly strong cultural and political relevant of the former to the latter.
The difference between shooting down a conventionally armed missile and shooting down a nuclear armed missile is that the former will explode in the air or not at all, whereas the latter is quite likely to still be able to detonate when it hits the ground.
There is a hardline element in the IRGC that personally profits from autarky. If the Iranian markets opened to the world, it would decimate their incomes.
> Thing is, pretty much all of this missile defence technology is about to become obsolete once hypersonic missiles become more widespread, which is going to happen pretty soon.
I think you'll have to be more specific.
Or I guess to compare with your other observation: """Even with all this protection, Iran [sent] enough ballistic missiles to overwhelm the defences""" -- It's not a binary of "have missile defense or not => every missile will be shot down". An amount of missile defense will make it harder for missiles to successfully hit a target.
Similarly with hypersonic missiles, it's not the binary of "I have a missile that's difficult to defend against, I win".
Having a sword which can defeat a shield isn't in itself sufficient to obsolete the shield. (Infantry can be killed with bullets, yet infantry remain an important part of fighting despite that).
> Considering the rationale for this war that kind of seems false
The spring to a nuke is riskier than ever. That doesn't change that nuclear sovereignty is a tier above the regular kind, this is something every one of the global powers (China, Russia and America) and most regional powers (Israel) have explicilty endorsed.
This is an incredibly facile take on the situation. Iran has been a destabilizing regional power with imperial aims for 47 odd years. They even murdered the PM of Lebanon via their proxy army. They’ve been poking the bear for decades, and there are serval occasions where it may have happened sooner in an alternative universe. Had McCain become president in ‘08 we may well have seen a land invasion from US positions in Iraq, as the Iranian Quds force was already fighting US soldiers in Iraq. The whole DoD is now full of Iraq veterans who hate the Iranian government to their bones. It’s shocking this didn’t happen sooner, and probably only didn’t because of luck.
More than taking control of Iranian petrol, this is probably more an attempt at cutting off China access to it (and also generally eliminating one of their allies), same as for the Venezuelan invasion.
I used to believe that, I think there are also some very ambitious people nearby who want to use US armed forces for their benefit - as any rational player who has influence over such power would attempt.
This is part of why we help defend Israel, to constrain wars to conventional means.
In the first Gulf War, we placed the Patriot batteries around Israel, as they said that if an Iraqi biological or chemical SCUD attack hit Tel Aviv, they would vitrify Baghdad.
Having nukes doesn't prevent _anyone_ from attacking you, but it does constrain those attacks to conventional means. And what if you pulled off a decapitation attack against Tel Aviv? Well their fleet of nuclear capable subs would make you pay.
Thanks for pointing this out. I hear people say this over and over, if Iran only had nukes it would be safe to continue propagating terrorism as it has been doing. It’s obviously wrong, as you point out. Russia has nukes. India has nukes. Having nuclear weapons doesn’t mean you can do whatever you want, if anything it brings a higher level of scrutiny. A nuclear Iran would be a serious problem for many and that’s why it’s so critical to make sure that doesn’t happen, not just for Israel but the entire planet.
There's only one country that has repeatedly attacked its neighbors and has decided to occupy and seize land from two of them while actively calling for and carrying out strikes in many others all in the last two years.
Iran effectively controlled Lebanon, Yemen, Syria and Iraq through its proxies and puppet regimes. Right, it didn't annex territory, but it complete subjugated these countries and their population to their goals.
Nothing racist or exaggerated in Hizbollah in Lebanon having far more military power than the country itself, and taking orders directly from the Iranians, dragging Lebanon into a war it never asked for.
My totally unsubstantiated conspiracy theory is that several of those are sitting in shipping containers in the US and Europe, and that is part of the reason that their interests drive all western foreign policy, despite their open hostility to their 'allies'.
How does that factor in here right now? We haven't used or threatened to use nukes, and at least the public case made is in part that Iran is trying to get nukes and shouldn't.
I say "public case" specifically here, I don't buy that justification but it is still the one being used.
It likely wouldn't be kinetic, but nukes didn't stop us from chipping away at the Soviet Union.
I could be wrong, but I don't buy the public story that this is about regime change. You don't topple a government with air superiority alone, and you don't do it in a matter of days. I also don't expect the US would be okay letting the Iranian people pick who comes next. We have a history of installing puppets and that similarly doesn't happen only via bombing runs.
> If Iran had deployable nukes, would they get invaded?
Honestly, maybe? Like if we had high confidence we knew where they were, and Israel consented to the attack, I could absolutely see the U.S. trying to take it out in storage.
If Iran had a nuke that could hit the U.S., I'd say no. But that's a stretch from "deployable nukes."
> Name a country that got bombed to credibly destroy the government, and had nukes
> if we had high confidence we knew where they were
That's a very big gamble. They only need to have hide one on a cargo ship and the attacker is going to have a Very Bad Day.
Nobody's made that gamble yet. Yes, there's been kinetics between India and Pakistan, and Iran sending missiles at Israel, but not a credible threat to the state.
> Pedantically, Ukraine.
Not sure when you mean. Did they get bombed while they had physical control in the early 90s? They never had operational control, but now that they're being bombed they don't have even physical control of nukes.
The most salient lesson of the post-Cold War era: Get nukes or die trying.
A nation's relationship to other states, up to and especially including superpowers, is completely different once it's in the nuclear club. Pakistan can host bin Laden for years and still enjoy US military funding. North Korea can literally fire missiles over South Korea and Japan and get a strongly-worded letter of condemnation, along with a generous increase in foreign aid. We can know, for a fact, that the 2003 Iraq War coalition didn't actually believe their own WMD propaganda. If they thought that Saddam could vaporize the invasion force in a final act of defiance, he'd still be in power today. Putin knows perfectly well that NATO isn't going to invade Russia, so he can strip every last soldier from the Baltic borders and throw them into the Ukrainian meat grinder.
Aside from deterring attack, it also discourages powerful outside actors from fomenting revolutions. The worry becomes who gets the nukes if the central government falls.
Iran's assumption seems to have been that by permanently remaining n steps away from having nukes (n varying according to the current political and diplomatic climate), you get all the benefits of being a nuclear-armed state without the blowback of going straight for them. But no, you need to have the actual weapons in your arsenal, ready to use at a moment's notice.
My advice for rulers, especially ones on the outs with major geopolitical powers: Pour one out for Gaddafi, then hire a few hundred Chinese scientists and engineers and get nuked up ASAP.
> My advice for rulers … hire a few hundred Chinese scientists and engineers and get nuked up ASAP.
Just need one flight from Pyongyang. Why suggest involving a major power given that you’ve just laid out the strategic need for nuclear weapons to deter interference from… major powers? Your post lacks coherency.
opportunity cost-wise, iran could have poured all the money they did in nuclear enrichment instead into missiles, air defense, etc, and they would not be having as much problems as they do now.
nuclear enrichment is extraordinarily expensive and really not all that great of a deterrent when you have them. just look at fairly recent tussels between india, pakistan and china. Russia was invaded and didnt nuke ukraine.
This is wrong. The gotcha underpinning this point denies reality of the situation, that Ukraine had warheads and the technical capability to take control of those warheads. There is no discussion here.
That's an idiosyncratic take on the facts that basically everyone else agrees to interpret otherwise.
Ukraine and weapons of mass destruction
Ukraine, formerly a republic of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) from 1922 to 1991, once hosted Soviet nuclear weapons and delivery systems on its territory.[1] The former Soviet Union had its nuclear program expanded to only four of its republics: Belarus, Kazakhstan, Russia, and Ukraine. After its dissolution in 1991, Ukraine inherited about 130 UR-100N intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM) with six warheads each, 46 RT-23 Molodets ICBMs with ten warheads apiece, as well as 33 heavy bombers, totaling approximately 1,700 nuclear warheads that remained on Ukrainian territory.[2] Thus Ukraine became the third largest nuclear power in the world (possessing 300 more nuclear warheads than Kazakhstan, 6.5 times less than the United States, and ten times less than Russia)[3] and held about one third of the former Soviet nuclear weapons, delivery system, and significant knowledge of its design and production.[4] While all these weapons were located on Ukrainian territory, they were not under Ukraine's control.[5]
In 1994, Ukraine agreed to transfer these weapons to Russia for dismantlement and became a party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, in exchange for economic compensation and assurances from Russia, the United States and the United Kingdom to respect Ukrainian independence and sovereignty within its existing borders.[6][7] Almost twenty years later, Russia, one of the parties to the agreement, invaded Ukraine in 2014 and subsequently also from 2022 onwards.
Btw, reference [5], used to justify the absurd claim that those weapons were in Ukraine's territory but not under its control, goes like this:
{{cite Hansard |url=https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199293/cmhansrd/1993... |title=Nuclear Weapons |speaker=[[Jeremy Hanley]] |position=Minister of State for the Armed Forces |house=[[House of Commons (United Kingdom)|House of Commons]] |volume=227 |date=June 22, 1993 |column=154 |access-date=September 9, 2018 |quote=Some weapons are also possessed by Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Belarus, but these are controlled by the Commonwealth of Independent States.}}
So it's basically the words of a UK MP assuring his audience that, nooo, don't worry, Ukraine doesn't control its WMD.
If nukes are so good why Israel isn't safe? Or in other words you overestimate how useful nukes are. On contrary for Iran them having nukes mean Israel have to guess if coming missiles contain nukes or not and whatever to strike back with their own nukes where as now they can freely sand missiles without escalation concerns.
Israel isn't safe? They are probably the most well defended country on the earth. A very capable domestic military and the full power of the US as an attack dog willing to do their bidding.
Nukes do not help against guerilla warfare: their destructive power is so big that they are really unreasonable attack weapon, and only a deterring factor instead.
They protect against being "policed" by big world countries.
Eg. if Ukraine still had nuclear weapons, Russia would not have been invading them (or are they "protecting" them, as promised when they took their nuclear arsenal for destruction?). If Iran or Iraq had nuclear weapons, they would not have been bombed by US.
Israeli nukes are the main reason we haven't had regime change in Tel Aviv at the hands of a Turkish/Egyptian/Saudi/Iranian coalition. Israeli nukes are why Iran has had to settle into a pattern of slow, distant, annoyance via proxy forces (which lack a capability for existentially challenging the IDF).
Anti-nuclear proliferation should now be treated as crime against humanity. Nuclear proliferation is only way to ensure world peace. Every single country should get nukes and capability to use them against each others. And be fully ready to do it.
I hope you and I never get the opportunity to learn how this would end. We’ve had nukes on Earth for less than 100 years, do you expect the next few thousand to go that well? Do you think in that time, nobody will ever roll a nat 1 on a wisdom check?
Yes. The US supports the monarchy, the Kurds and MeK. The CIA was revealed to have armed MeK (despite designation) and my guess is that they do with the Kurds too. The CIA also talks to the Balochi groups as well although I don't know how organized or armed they are.
Needless to say, "regime change" would in reality mean civil war like Syria or collapse like Libya.
The US has spent a lot of time and money on MEK but I don't think they are very effective. Or will be very effective. My understanding is the leader of MEK has n't been seen in years(is probably dead), and MEK members are only allowed to marry other MEK members, so the number of MEK members is way down from their 80s highpoint, and it's not getting better.
Well, Iraq is not that simple because Iran has also invested a lot in Iraq with various Shia forces. Right now Iraq is trying not to get involved. That's been their news all day. Maybe that is a sign that the Iranian investment is paying off, or just that the Iraqis are tired as fuck especially after the first Iran-Iraq invasion and then them being fucked by the US.
Romanizations are fashion trends rather than any kind of science or real standardized system. Other than those places with Roman-era Latin spellings like Syria, others have dozens of variants.
A plan? Actually there is. This is all part of the backdrop to end US elections. We can’t have elections in the middle of a major war. And if we do have them we must greatly constrain how they are held while we are at war.
We had elections during WW2, the largest war of all time; we had elections during the civil war when confederate troops were 30 miles from DC. An air campaign in the Middle East is just another tuesday by comparison. This theory falls flat on its face - it is not a reasonable pretext for suspending elections, and this administration does not bother with creating pretexts for its power grabs.
Ah, but whether it is a "reasonable" pretext/excuse for suspending elections is up to the media and how they want to spin it for the masses, to shape their opinion, isn't it? And how practical, that more news outlets are now owned by MAGA people. Furthermore, I will not put it past Trump to use any flimsy excuse to suspend elections, if he thinks he will lose.
What if Trump were to say elections are illegal due to the war. We need to delay them. And Republicans in congress did nothing. And the Supreme Court decided not to hear any cases related to it. What then? We’re learning the US government has basically no teeth to stop something like this.
It's a scary thought, albeit not a realistic one at the moment, thankfully. The Supreme Court has shown ample willingness to strike down blatant (and subtle, for that matter) executive overreach. Exhibit A is Trump's tariffs, which were justified by the administration to be legal through the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which allows the president to “regulate…importation” during a declared state of emergency. The Supreme Court found that the wording in the act allowing the president to “regulate…importation” was not sufficient to grant the president the power to impose tariffs. The wording in the IEEPA is vague enough that you could go either way, but the conservative majority tends to follow the Major Questions Doctrine, which essentially says that in vague matters like this, assume that the power belongs to Congress and not the president.
Meanwhile, delaying or canceling elections through executive order would be blatantly illegal, particularly when no conflict is taking place on U.S. soil. The case likely wouldn't even make it to the Supreme Court, but if it did, I have no doubt elections would be promptly reinstated.
I'm not saying the Supreme Court has a perfect record, of course. Not even two years ago, they essentially ruled that the president is above the law. But at least in matters regarding the balance of powers between branches, the Supreme Court is wary of the power of the executive branch, and that should certainly include the president's ability (or lack thereof) to interfere in elections.
Can you name something which can't be spun by the media or that you could not believe Trump would try to use as an excuse? If something is always true, it is evidence of nothing in particular.
Claiming this strike on Iran is an attempt to suspend US elections is exactly as ridiculous as claiming the last round of strikes on Iran, or the Maduro raid, or any of Trump's other previous military boondoggles were attempts to suspend US elections.
I've been trying to avoid the news for a little over a year now. I needed a detox. ... Is this true? That is, are there legitimate proposals to cancel or constrain the November elections in any significant way? Or, is this all speculation?
There's a memo out about nationalizing elections and there's the SAVE America act to require much stricter voting requirements. Both of these unconstitutional obviously because federal government doesn't run elections.
Isn't this essentially what MAGA argued during the fighting over the 2020 election - that the states should be able to run their elections however-the-fvck they want, and the feds have no right tell the states how to run their elections?
When zelenskyy mentioned elections were suspended by the war to trump, in the Whitehouse while in a room full of media, trump replied something like "now that's a good idea"
> We can’t have elections in the middle of a major war.
Yes we can? Is there any provision in the US Constitution that allows delay of election because of war? We have had elections during most of our recent wars (Iraq, Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan).
Trump could definitely try. Or pull an emergency card out of his ass. But it doesn't mean there is any provision for cancelling elections because of this 'war' with Iran (which they aren't even calling a war, but a "special combat operation" to get around congress having the war powers)
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the ‘‘Authorization for Use of Military Force’’.
SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) IN GENERAL.—That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
I was discussing this with a friend today. It just feels like there's no point to these actions.
Not in the sense of "I don't ideologically agree with our decision to do this," but in the sense of, "I do not see how this accomplishes any ideological or practical goal."
What are they trying for? Regime change in Iran? No more Iranian nuclear program? There barely was one before. Keeping Israel safe? It's been an open secret for years that Iran is not a real threat to Israel, because any action it took against Israel would be existential for Iran and its leadership.
A US president who vocally and repeatedly promised he would not start new conflicts keeps starting them, and there's not even a reason. It's infuriating. I have my partisan opinions, but that should not be a partisan statement! It's just disturbing!
The point is preventing another North Korea style nuclear blackmail state.
Iran has negotiated like no one will ever attack it, and that was a correct assumption for decades
However, due to Iran's overly aggressive use of questionably rational proxies, Hamas has dragged it into a regional conflict where it lost most of its proxies power.
After the last war, it also is no longer a threshold state, so the only leverage they had left was ballistic missiles, which were also handled quite reasonably by Israeli air defense.
In this situation it is a fair request by the US to sign a nuclear deal that heavily restricts Iran's ability to enrich as well as ICBM, trigger with existing uranium stockpiles removed.
As Iran due to ideological reasons refused, and IMO had miscalculated this will be a win-win, as losing will quell the protests, the only thing really left is the metaphorical stick
Does Iran not have the same rights of self-defense and sovereignty as the US and Israel?
> The point is preventing another North Korea style nuclear blackmail state
The US and Israel are currently nuclear blackmail states. The rational move for Iran to prevent itself from being bullied is to have nukes like North Korea.
> In this situation it is a fair request by the US
190 countries signed the non proliferation treaty for a very good reason, so no they don’t have the right to it in any sense of the word on the international stage.
Especially not when they’re mass murdering protestors and funding islamic extremism left and right
Okay so neither then does Israel yet here we are a country with illicit nuclear weapons that murdered scores of thousands of civilians has what standing to do what now?
They actually do. And I say it as a European and I think the Iranian regime is as bad as it gets, and won't shed a tear if they all get executed.
What recent months show us, is that it's a rough world - there are no friends. I'm rooting for European countries to accelerate their nuclear weapons programs. In an ideal world, of course I would be against. But the world is far from ideal. The current alternative is being dictated the rules by Donald Trump or Vladimir Putin. Thanks, but no.
Next up, Hannibal Lector marches for change of regime in I-ran and better life for I-ranians. When asked if that's not a bit odd, he says, get back at me when my crimes are on a similar scale.
> The rational move for Iran to prevent itself from being bullied is to have nukes like North Korea
North Korea invaded South Korea, stole a US Navy ship (the Pueblo, which they still proudly exhibit), dug large infiltration tunnels under the DMZ, kidnapped hundreds, or even thousands people from SK (and Japan, to a lesser extent), and have assassinated, or attempted to assassinate, multiple SK heads of state, and perpetrated acts of terror like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Air_Flight_858
What did the US or SK do to them before their nuclear program that constituted "bullying?"
Why exactly do you suppose the US gets away with carrying out military attack or threatening to carry out military attack against a new country every couple of months?
The NPT did not exist at the time of the US developing nuclear weapons, and it explicitly allows US (and other pre-existing nuclear powers') weapons.
Israel, like India and Pakistan, simply never signed it, forgoing the international nuclear technology market as a consequence but also avoiding a treaty obligation not to develop them.
That was before the revolution. The revolutionary government still honored the deal, but that's been obviously a losing move for a while. The whole Middle East recognizes that, just look at how many countries Pakistan has sharing agreements with recently.
They might not disappear, but it's more like loan sharks insisting you must inherit your father's gambling debts than anything. The US and Israel have absolutely no place criticizing others for breaking agreements in any case.
The Paris Agreement included an explicit clause allowing parties to exit it after giving notice of withdrawal. It did not go out of effect immediately on Trump's election, but the administration went through the legal procedure.
The NPT has much stricter terms for withdrawal, which in any case Iran has not followed.
(The better and much more relevant analogy would be the JCPOA. That's what happens when the US does foreign policy by "executive agreement" instead of treaty. Foreign countries should not value them more than the paper they're written on.)
No such right exists, except in moral terms, but if you are going to invoke morals, the Iranian regime does not hold up well. So no, they do not.
Perhaps you will argue that the US or Israel or Pakistan or North Korea have conducted themselves in a way where they do not have that moral right either, but that is a different debate, and either way it is moot because they do have them.
In many ways I think it would be better than the world controlled by the US axis.
Then again, I am not from the US nor Israel nor any muslim country. I just hope the countries I care about stay out of this Iran deal.
This would allow me to quietly hope that Iran somehow wins this in the long run. I have this tendency of supporting the aggressed party in uneven conflicts.
Even when Iran is funding and arming Hamas, hezbollah, houthis, irqai militias, calls for the destruction of Israel, a trying to build such capability? When is a preemptive strike legitimate?
Are we going to pretend Israel has no genocidaire ambitions against basically every neighboring country? What do you think ideas of "greater Israel" are?
Hell, the US ambassator to Israel basically admitted to it in an recent interview with Tucker Carlson.
Also, lest we forget, the US has a huge laundry list of supporting insurgencies and actively sponsoring coups everywhere. Especially in Latin America.
To be frank, Iran sounds pretty tame in comparison. If your argument is that they are evil, I would counter they are definitely the lesser of two evils.
“Greater Israel” is such a stupid take, conspiracy from Islamist propaganda. I can count with both my hands the number of people that believe that in Israel.
Let’s perform a thought experiment. Israel is 8 million Jews, half of the country is an unpopulated desert, our largest border is with Jordan which is barely defensible. And you think that we want to conquer Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and parts of Iraq? With what army? How can we support such a conquest? How will we defend that border? Sharing a border with Iran? How will 8 million Jews handle the 40 million Muslims that will allegedly be conquered? This makes so little sense that believing it just exposes your radical bias.
> I can count with both my hands the number of people that believe that in Israel.
I hope you are counting the current prime minister with your fingers.
> And you think that we want to conquer Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and parts of Iraq?
I think Israel is an extremely aggressive country, yes.
> How will 8 million Jews handle the 40 million Muslims that will allegedly be conquered?
Conquered? No, the 40 million would be murdered if Israel has its way.
Speaking of numbers is very disingenuous when it an bring along the US to this fight.
I said that Israel has genocidaire ambitions towards its neighbors, I never said anything about conquest.
Population numbers would matter only if Israel had ambitions to rule over the people. When your intention is murder the numbers are only a challenge to your goal.
So you’re saying that Israel is planning to kill 40 million people with the help of USA? jeez man, you gotta lay of the kool aid. That’s some deep conspiracy shit.
Desire? Absolutely. That's what they have been doing with the Palestinians after all.
As I said before, I have no dog in this race. I personally prefer the countries I care about to not get involved in this conflict, and hope the US-Israel axis lose somehow.
I stole that silly axis jargon from you. It is very fitting there now.
Are you saying that countries and people are the same?
And I’m not entirely sure what point are you trying to make, that terror countries like the houthis should have nuclear weapons, or that people in a country should not have equal rights.
Terrorists already have nuclear weapons. Of course no country having nukes is ideal, but in absence of that possibility everyone having them is better, unless your reasoning is "I hope my side has them and the other side doesn't."
>Iran has negotiated like no one will ever attack it, and that was a correct assumption for decades
Iran had a signed agreement, trump cancelled it. Israel literally killed Irans negotiators just a few months ago. What is this nuclear level ignorance.
This comment is so wrong. Trump's strikes won't "prevent" anything, it's domestic posturing to look tough. You cannot bomb your way into regime change.
> After the last war, it also is no longer a threshold state
That's also wrong. Trump claimed Iran's enrichment capabilities were totally destroyed, but they weren't.
> In this situation it is a fair request by the US to sign a nuclear deal
America already had a good deal. Trump got rid of it.
> In this situation it is a fair request by the US to sign a nuclear deal that heavily restricts Iran's ability to enrich, and as Iran due to ideological reasons refused, and IMO miscalculated this will be a win-win, as losing will quell the protests, the only thing really left is the metaphorical stick
Didn't we have one of those a few years ago? I wonder what happened to it /s
Seriously, though: how can Iran both be so powerful we must avoid it becoming a blackmail state, and so weak and feckless it's not a threat to anyone?
And didn't we already attack them to stop them from getting nuclear capabilities?
The contradiction is that they’re weak at this minute - militarily and economically and politically. But they won’t be this weak in the future.
- Military - their regional proxies destroyed, missile and drone stocks low, provably weak air defences.
- Economically - the currency is worthless, extreme inflation for seven years and hyper inflation for a few months, the economy is currently producing nothing due to unrest, they have a massive water shortage of their own making. They have no goods worth exporting. Their oil is sanctioned, meaning only China will buy from them and at a steep discount. And oil is extremely cheap at this minute.
- Politically - they have no friends willing to bail them out. Russia has no money to spare. China doesn’t care about anyone outside of China. North Korea is even poorer. All sections within Iranian society detest the mullahs running the government. They’re hanging on by killing tens of thousands of protestors.
Trump bets that Iran’s leaders are at their weakest since their war with Saddam ended in 1988. Meaning now is the best time to negotiate a deal where they hand over their fissile material and uranium enrichment equipment. In return they could get a heavy water reactor(s) that produces energy but no fissile material.
If he lets this opportunity slip Iran could fix all of their many problems in a year or three. Manufacture more missiles and drones. Build up their proxies once more. Maybe the price of oil recovers. Russia’s war ends and they aid Iran best they can. The economy recovers and the Iranian people stop trying to overthrow the government. Maybe a conflict starts elsewhere that draws America’s full attention.
Will Trump get that deal? Probably not. That fissile material is the only leverage the mullahs have. If they give it up they’ll be toppled like the other dictators who gave up their weapons programs - Gaddafi and Saddam.
> Didn't we have one of those a few years ago? I wonder what happened to it /s
Yes, although it had merit it was far worse than what can be signed now, especially the sunset clause was problematic
> Seriously, though: how can Iran both be so powerful we must avoid it becoming a blackmail state, and so weak and feckless it's not a threat to anyone?
that's the nature of nuclear weapons, your conventional force can be abysmal (pretty much NK situation vs US) and yet you can create epic destruction
> And didn't we already attack them to stop them from getting nuclear capabilities?
Yes, the thing here is the long term goal of signing a deal, whose main goal is removing the existing highly enriched uranium from Iran and restricting their ability to redevelop nuclear capabilities. Essentially this is the part where "Diplomacy is the continuation of war by other means" (to highly paraphrase), because the alternative to a deal is maintenance attacks such as these every two years
I dont see how it is fair from USA to demand others dont have nukes. Ukraine made mistake of trusting ISA and giving them away and now USA basically support Russia in their invasion.
Iran is a bad guy state ... but the "fair" atgunent hwre dont apply.
> Has Israel even officially confirmed they have nukes?
No. There's a number of reasons for this. #1 is Israel's policy of "strategic ambiguity" and #2 is that it might be illegal to even mention it in Israel. Israel prosecuted a whistleblower nuclear scientist for leaking state secrets, for example.
> And who have they blackmailed with the nukes?
The US, for one:
"Similarly, in the 1973 Yom Kippur War, IDF was again outnumbered by the invading Arab armies. Then Israeli PM Golda Meir authorized a nuclear alert and ordered that nuclear warheads be readied for launch from missiles and aircraft. The Israeli ambassador to the US, Simcha Dinitz, met with Henry Kissinger to inform President Nixon of “Very serious conclusions” if the US did not airlift arms supplies to the IDF. Nixon complied with this demand due to the threat of the use of nuclear forces. This was the first successful use of the Samson option as a threat and tantamount to nuclear blackmail."
The Samson Option enables Israel to blackmail the entire Middle East, and do so silently. Turkey or Egypt can't afford for Hezbollah to overrun Israel, because Ankara and Cairo might get nuked, even if they had nothing to do with contributing to Israel's existential crisis. It basically forces the whole neighborhood to keep each other in check out of sheer self-preservation. Credit given where credit due, it's a smart approach on Israel's part.
You asked two perfectly valid questions; rather, those who ought to admit correction, in threads like these, tend to behave confidently opinionated while engaging deeply with a commenter who disagrees with their take on things.
On Israel, is it possible that they feel their influence on US foreign policy is waning and they want to push over Iran before they can’t do it anymore, even if the propaganda in America hasn’t been sufficiently set up yet to provide cover? Where pushing Iran over is useful because having weak neighbors is good for their expansion?
Possibly wishful thinking, but that’s the only way I can make it make sense in my head.
does anyone seriously believe there can be a good outcome of this for iranian people?
I can't make up a story that will be good for iranian people in the end. Is there even an example in last 100 years that started out like this thing is starting out and ended well for the people?
I didn’t really know much about Iran as a typical American until I married an Iranian woman. And then I met her family and her friends and I came to love Persian people. They’re some of the kindest people I’ve ever met.
What hasn’t come up enough in this thread is the currency crisis that triggered the protests. The economy is in shambles and they’re still simmering anger about the Mahsa Amini killing.
There Iranian people are tired of being under the thumb of the mullahs. They don’t want to live under an Islamic theocracy.
Millions of Iranians all over the world and inside Iran are cheering us on. They’re done. Yes, they’re scared and they don’t know what will come next, but they know what they have now is intolerable.
it’s possible this could all go badly, but what the Iranian people have now is worse. We have to try. Every Iranian person I’ve met is hopeful something better will come.
A similar scenario to this played out in Yugoslavia and overthrowing of the previously proven, and definitely not 90% manufactured "evil, genocidal and dictatorship regime" of Slobodan Milosevic. A lot of people cheered, including many expats, and "democracy" and "freedom" were finally gifted to the people. To be clear, I, in no way, justify any atrocities committed in war by any party - but "evil" and "savage" was used to describe a lot of legitimate reactions of the country, in a very similar way to how Iran is now "savagely attacking" innocent countries around them.
What happened afterwards in reality was 20+ years of escalating corruption and sale and systemic destruction of any valuable assets - culminating in the government of Aleksandar Vucic, member of Milosevic's regime, who in the recent years pumped out absolutely incredible amounts of money out of the country and is a de-facto dictator.
If you ask people who remember living under Milosevic about how it was, they all say the same thing - bad in some ways, but certainly better than this, and that he was a "little kitten" compared to the current fully criminal organisation.
Not to mention that many of Iran's problems are caused by several decades of sanctions that are stifling its economy and reducing the quality of life in the country. Why is this being forgotten?
Ironically, Iranians right now are saying the same thing about the Shah. They’re saying that, while the Shah wasn’t perfect, things were better back then than they are now.
> If you ask people who remember living under Milosevic about how it was, they all say the same thing - bad in some ways, but certainly better than this
You don’t unseat the Fraudster in Chief while at war. So starting a war is a slightly less conspicuous trick than outright preventing relevant elections from taking place.
Iran is the main source of resistance in the region. Libya, Iraq, and Syria have been pacified. Egypt has been bought off. All the groups still fighting Israel (Hezbollah, Houthis, probably Hamas) have received significant Iranian support.
I believe the calculation is this is Israel’s last best window of opportunity to leverage the declining American empire with a compromised asset in the White House. The time to strike is now, since in 10 years US military power and US political will in support of Israel will likely be diminished.
Probably a continuation of the 'mowing the lawn' strategy (as used against the Palestinians). Every now and again use massive military force to set back Iran's capabilities, time and effort they spend rebuilding is time and effort not spent causing problems elsewhere.
Yes, when you ask the basic Clauzewitz question about "continuation of politics by other means": what are the war aims, and how is this action connected to them?
What are the strikes even against?
Do they seriously think that after Iran shot all the street revolutionaries, another group will come forward and collapse the government?
Are they treating Iran as Big Serbia? It's a very different situation!
Anyone raising their weapon against Israel in the last 20 years was armed, supplied, funded, trained and directed by Iran. There’s a special division called Quds in the IRGC responsible just for that. The list includes Hizbollah, Assad’s former regime in Syria, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Houthis, Hizbollah in Iraq and others.
Israel being an ethnic supremacist state for more than the last 20 years [0], on a determined mission to ethnically cleanse the indigenous population from their ancestral land [1], this comment unintentionally makes Iran sound like the good guys in this story. (I do not support any form of theocracy).
So we agree that the first move in this conflict was a 20th century European nationalist group setting up a new state by force in the middle of an inhabited nation? With the blessing of the colonial power in charge.
Doesn't defend what happened to Jewish people in Egypt and Lebanon, but certainly puts some context around it.
As for the depopulation of Jews from Yemen and Iraq, that was Israeli policy and they managed it by themselves.
You seem confused and didn't seem to read the message you are replying to. I think the main point should be repeated to avoid the reading issues problem:
>So we agree that the first move in this conflict was a 20th century European nationalist group setting up a new state by force in the middle of an inhabited nation? With the blessing of the colonial power in charge.
It had someone living there, those someone's weren't asked and their land handed over to someone else. If we see it from the perspective of it having being a British colonial project, then it's even worse having gone from one colonial master to another without asking the natives.
Yes, Israel was founded specifically to be a safe haven for Jews after 2/3 of them were murdered in Europe, and it passed this (somewhat ridiculous) law in 2018 because it knows full well that once Jews cease to be the majority in Israel, they'll cease to be, period.
You can view it as racist, you can hate it, you can want to see Israel destroyed in favor of yet another 100% Arab country, it really doesn't matter, because the fact is you're all hypocrites who only have the safety that you have because of genocides, brutal wars, land capture, regime toppling and forced conversions. That's the only thing we learned from the rest of the enlightened world. Kill, destroy, erase, force convert, and somehow be deemed a beacon of freedom and democracy.
In real life, Israel is more ethnically and religiously varied than all its surrounding countries, and non-Jews in Israel have rights that even I, as a Jew, don't have (such as freedom of religion). Jews are a minority in the Galilee, and there's no law for the Judaization of the Galilee.
Cultural Arabs and Ethnic Arabs are not the same thing.
Ethnic Arabs are from the Arabian peninsula. Islam's expansion started a slow process of Arabization whereby indigenous people in lands that ended up under the control of the Muslim caliphate/empire started speaking Arabic (mixed with their local dialects) and adopting aspects of Arabic culture, not dissimilar to the previous process of Romanization and Hellenization from the Greeks and Romans.
TL;DR People who today call themselves Palestinians are biological descendants of ancient Jews and other peoples local to the region of Palestine who eventually converted to Christianity and/or Islam, some remained Jewish, started speaking Arabic, and never left the land.
That's what genetic studies and history converge on, and what the early zionist leaders including Ben-Gurion also happened to believe in (Ben-Gurion wrote a thesis on this subject), until it became inconvenient for Zionism to continue to do so.
>Ben-Gurion, along with Yitzhak Ben-Zvi (the second President of Israel), argued in a 1918 booklet (written in Yiddish) that the Arab peasants of Palestine were not descendants of the Arab conquests, but rather the "remnant of the ancient Hebrew agriculturalists".
If you'd rather modern science, then there are genetic studies out of Israeli universities leading weight to this hypothesis (they tend to not get much attention among modern zionists as you can imagine). It's also the general consensus among historians of the region, inside and outside Israel. It's not really a contested position amongst academic historians.
>I love how you turned the elimination of hundreds of religions and ethnic groups into some beautiful cultural influence.
It was not always a clean process, varied a lot by century and location, but on the whole did not involve ethnic cleansing or massacres of ethnicities. The percentages of Arabs you quote above are, again, people who started calling themselves Arabs after cultural shifts, and not, as you seem to believe, a result of mass migration of ethnic Arabs from the Arabian peninsula to replace the local populations.
I don't think we have much else to exchange in good faith on this topic, so I'll leave you here.
> What are they trying for? Regime change in Iran?
Seems like it. I can't imagine what else they might try for.
I suppose USA might think some shock and awe will result in iran making concessions at the bargaining table, but that seems unrealistic to me.
> No more Iranian nuclear program? There barely was one before.
That seems very debatable.
> Keeping Israel safe? It's been an open secret for years that Iran is not a real threat to Israel, because any action it took against Israel would be existential for Iran and its leadership.
Well they did take action against israel (you could say they were indirectly responsible for oct 7). Now they are facing said existential threat.
---
Ultimately though. Iran has been a major threat to both israeli and US interests, largely by funding proxy groups that take violent action against those interests. That's your motive for a war.
Iran is currently weak, facing multiple internal and eexternal crisises.
A war is happening because there is a limited window where iran is weak but the window potentially won't remain. That's the reason behind a lot of wars in history.
It would be highly impractical to go to war with all of them at once, but USA can still fix one country at time. Venezuella, Iran, hopefully Cuba next.
They were only aligned with us after we overthrew their democratic secular government in 1953, and installed an unpopular authoritarian monarchy as sole leader. The reason we overthrew their government is because they felt we were ripping them off in oil deals and wanted the right to audit and cancel those deals (and renationalize their oil fields) if we weren't playing fair. Then in 1979 that puppet government was overthrown in a "real" revolution, which gave birth to the Islamic Republic of Iran which, for some reason, always had a chip on its shoulder against the West.
The protests in Iran today are almost certainly being extensively backed by the CIA and other US organizations. Do not mistake a minority as necessarily representing much more than themselves. Of course they might (I certainly don't have any particular insight in the "real" Iran), but you could certainly see something similar happening in the US with extreme groups, left or right wing, becoming visibly active if they were able to find a strong backing/organizing power that made them believe that they could genuinely overthrow the government. The point being that the actions and claims of those groups would not necessarily represent the US at large.
Their endgame is genocide. They will be happy to only enslave the Iranian people too. Seriously, USA and its colony in Palestine are colonialist supremacists and they just want to extract all the resources and don't mind killing all the people of that land.
It's regime change this time. Trump published a message calling for all Iranian military forces to surrender and the Iranian people to take over the government.
I'm not sure how much that will pay off - it also gives China legitimacy in starting to much more overtly pursue their own interests through force. I definitely wouldn't be surprised if we saw something happening very quickly.
It accomplishes the goal of diverting attention away from the recent revelations of a pedophile ring among the elites having operated from a private island for decades, with current US president and serial rapist Trump being best friends with the ring leader.
It's bound to be incredibly successful at accomplishing that goal.
Similarly, wars against Iraq and Afghanistan were very successful in diverting attention away from 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers being from Saudi Arabia, and later on from the funding provided to one or more of the hijackers by Saudi officials. With a certain Ms. Maxwell being asked to join the investigatory committee on the event in question.
Yes, but there is also the other elephant in the room. Don’t underestimate Trump, he may not have read about Michael Parenti’s explanation of The Assassination of Julius Caesar: where he argues that Caesar was killed not as a tyrant threatening republican liberty, but as a popular reformer who challenged the Roman oligarchy's wealth and power and thirst for wars.
Maybe Parenti doesn't explicitly equate JFK's killing to Caesar’s, the similarity lies in both being elite-driven assassinations to preserve power: Caesar by Roman senators against reforms, akin to theories of JFK's killing over anti-war shifts and perceived threats to entrenched interests. Critics note Parenti's JFK work critiques official narratives as state cover-ups, mirroring his Caesar "people's history" inversion of "gentlemen historians."
Some people here might not be American or were too young to remember the lead up to the Iraq War, but it was transparently bullshit. Many people knew this. But if you dared say that, supporters would actively ruin your life. The Dixie Chicks were one of the most popular music acts in the US at the time, a country band that broke out of country and was getting huge appeal across the US. They dared to say they opposed the war. Their careers never returned.
Now with social media that isn't completely locked down, some voice of opposition can slip through and assure people that, yes, this is crazy. No, we don't need to blow the shit out of towns across the world. But these social media sites are all owned by government-aligned mega billionaires. They're rolling out AI that can comment and act very, very human and endorse everything the government does. They can auto-police opinions and spit out thousands of arguments and messages of harassment against them in seconds. Soon they'll be autoblocking any sense of disagreement.
It's at that point they can say that this is done to defend America. This is done to defend freedom. This desert country that's too screwed up to even manage its own internal affairs is somehow so dangerous that it's going to destroy the whole world with nukes it doesn't even have so we must destroy them all now. Dear leader always has your interests at heart. And you'll have no info to point to saying otherwise. Everyone who dares question it will be mocked, ridiculed, fired. Even if this administration fails, the tools are being built and laid out for the next, and I really don't know how humanity will overcome it. And I hate that I can't have optimism in this situation.
This discussion is one where it's worth looking at commenters' histories. Many have several pages where the bulk of their posts are defending Israel, saying war with Iran is necessary, and various related things. It's kind of spooky
While true for the Iraq war I don't think that holds as true anymore. Even a lot of MAGA recognise that getting into wars in the Middle East does nothing but cost the taxpayer billions/trillions of dollars for nothing to show.
That's because there's a glimpse of reason that still pokes through with influencers sometimes saying "you know, I think (thing) might not be good so I hope Trump doesn't do it." Then when trump does (thing), they always backpedal and say it's great. Pre-election inflation was a problem. Now prices are great. Epstein was a problem. Now they say nobody cares. War with Iran was bad. In 2 days influencers will all have a prepared message supporting it and in 3 days half the country will absolutely support it.
It's a nakedly imperial gambit, the Western ruling classes are attempting to deny Middle Eastern oil to Russia and China. Iran is their only capable opposition in the region, every other Gulf country is a bought-and-paid-for satrapy which just cosigned a genocide on its doorstep.
The US department of war said last month that it was "obliterated"
>No other military in the world could have executed an operation of such scale,
complexity, and consequence as Operation MIDNIGHT HAMMER. Yet the Joint Force did so
flawlessly and obliterated Iran’s nuclear program.
Ever since the ICE stuff I've been desperate to find a way to not pay my taxes - even if it means donating 2, 3x, hell 4x my tax bill to somewhere else. Obviously it's basically impossible to do this (especially if your income is all self employment income) outside of just spending every penny you earn on something that could be viably considered a business expense. So I'm wondering if I should just straight up stop working until I can relinquish my USA citizenship.
Spend down my savings and assets till I have almost nothing to exit tax, exit, and then start working again.
I don't want to fund the bombing of strangers I have no quarrel with.
If you're willing to go through all this trouble, why not just become politically active? Don't underestimate what a motivated individual can do. All these public figures (or institutions) swaying the country back and forth are only people too.
I was politically active in the USA, in the only way I believe can make any meaningful change: direct action, mutual aid.
The American political system is captured by two neoliberal (one now post liberal, fascist) parties, and you have to sell your soul to "accomplish" anything, only to watch it yet ratcheted away by your own party, or obliterated by the fascists.
You're a good person and I feel similarly. We live under the Fourth Reich.
I do not think ceasing work is the right move, but definitely get involved politically and don't equivocate when you condemn our elected "representatives".
It might also soothe your soul to be in the company of like-minded individuals. A Quaker prayer is a sure place to find many.
This is a laudable position, and I don't say this to discourage you or others from taking this action, but taxation does not effectively constrain US military spending, as long as the USD remains globally desirable and the US retains the ability to print more of them.
Many people might wonder why China doesn't step in to help Iran. From our perspective, we realized a long time ago that the Iranian government is too weak and fundamentally untrustworthy. They would sell out China's interests to curry favor with the United States, so China's cooperation with Iran is kept as free from political entanglements as possible. War is wrong, but at most China will sell some weapons—it won't get too involved."
Based on recent events, China seems to be an all-round an unreliable ally. China did nothing for Venezuela when Maduro was kidnapped by the US, did nothing for Pakistan when India conducted airstrikes on Pakistani military bases, and now is doing nothing for Iran. You guys seem more like ruthless businessmen who are in it to solely make money and nothing else, and in that regard you guys are very similar to the Americans.
Iranians are celebrating, btw. This is what they have been dreaming of. This is their chance to finally take their country back, and I think they'll do it.
I can't think of a better use of US military power in the world than to take out this terrible regime and let the Iranians do the rest. This isn't Iraq or Venezuela. People saying that we can't bomb our way into regime change apparently didn't follow the protests and massacres very closely a couple months ago. Iranians were begging for help so that they could topple the regime.
The news of bombs falling on schools must be really exhilarating to people. Especially for the ones that have children! Finally they have a chance to throw away their government and replace it with a military junta
> People saying that we can't bomb our way into regime change apparently didn't follow the protests and massacres very closely a couple months ago. Iranians were begging for help so that they could topple the regime.
Of course people didn’t follow. Did you see any major news outlet doing live coverage of the events like they did for October 7th? No.
I sincerely hope I'm wrong, but if 89,95M of 90M people are just looking at from the sides for years, I'm still not seeing that this would motivate people to revolt. Same thing as with the young elephant growing up with the chains.
Successful regime change requires a far more significant investment in soft power than America & Israel's current right-wing leadership would even conceive of.
After 5000 years of human organised war history we are here:
* the weapons can annihilate the world and extinguish civilization in a few hours
* a massive asymmetry between the enemies in any metric is evident
* the strikes and battles are surprisingly of small scale, targeted and not decisive
Why on earth isn't the diplomacy used to solve the status after an imminent warning to make Iran an extension of Indian ocean with weapons of mass destruction?
When I left the reply, the comment was light gray.
I quipped that it is 'customary' based only on a few previous instances I noticed on HN. They drew my attention because with ME issues, I feel like most takes here (including my own) are based on received ideas, rather than first-hand experience.
That is true but that’s often how these things go, you pull together a coalition of factions to overthrow the existing elites and then afterwards it devolves into infighting
> All we know is that they did launch a missile that blew up a school. That's it. Just a little woopsies!
Ignore what schools are for and who are in them and what communities exist around them. Ignore that a school is clearly not a fucking military target. Ignore the workers digging through rubble and the reported deaths.
No, despite the past 25 years, the US and Israel's governments are not only trustworthy, but the only source of truth. There are no deaths in Ba Sing Se. There were nuclear missiles hidden in that school!
And, of course, I'm sure we'll hear next that any deaths were terrorists. And if any photos of lifeless kids come up, clearly they're some kind of pinatas or AI! And if their names and life stories come out and there are funerals - duh, state actors!
My country has completely lost its fucking mind. Which I guess makes sense enough after spending my entire adult life watching people basically shrug over little kids being gunned down at school.
Which, dang, that reminds me how Sandy Hook was also a conspiracy and I've had to suffer listening to the same exact "state actor" thing with that.
Fact check before writing walls of text. Information war is a real thing. Everything you wrote has no import on whether this particular piece of information is true.
Oh the car accident was years ago, I was fine. I cannot walk because I'm seatbelted into a car driving down the road at the moment. Why would you have ever thought there was a connection?
You are lying, they have been trying to avoid this war in any possible way. But Israel wanted this war before they lost the support of the USA population (that it's happening fast) or they have a less accommodating USA president.
I agree about Israel fast losing support among the general public here but the idea of a less accommodating executive or legislative branch in the US for Israel is unthinkable. Not unless the system is changed from the ground up in dramatic fashion. The two most relevant branches of government in this country are completely beholden to Israel and anybody denying it is a zionist shill.
Anyway, sticking to the "Death to America" strategy and choosing to run a global proxy war and killing their own people, instead of choosing peace, have led to this moment.
Lets pray for the people of Iran we get rid of the regime this time, and eventually reach peace in the middle east.
Israel? Or the US? Because it would seem all three countries are run by fanatics that just believe in a slightly different version of the exact same story that they call a religion.
I take that back, Trump doesn't believe in anything but himself, but he's surrounded himself in a blanket of Christian nationalists.
Trump will be out of office in a couple of years, and hopefully Netanyahu as well. That's how democracy works. Israel has 20% muslim citizens, with muslim parties and parliament members, cities and vibrant Arab communities. They can work with liberal Jewish Israelis and kick out Netanyahu if they are smart. Much better then war and blood.
I really dislike Trump. He is not my type at all. I dislike religion and consider myself a liberal - but:
Trump said "help is on its way" on Jan 13, and today Khamenei is dead.
He kept his words.
Free Iran!
Hopefully any leader that consistently sticks with "Death to America"+"Death to Israel" will find himself dead.
The world needs leaders that belive in Peace and freedom. The world and Iran are much much better without dictators like Khomenei. Especially for an "average Iranian".
we sure dodged a bullet in 2024 elections and elected the right people to stop all these senseless wars that were one of the cornerstones of the election campaign
Voters don't lose elections, campaigns do. Harris failed, and this kind of "turning around of the blame" thing that Dems try to do is one of the reasons why they don't win elections: they never learn.
The reality is that Trump voters were (are?) dumb as rocks and tricked by simple populist messaging. There was nothing harris could've done short of succumbing to populism herself, and cloaking her campaign in dishonesty, fear, and simpleton reasoning.
Maybe she shouldve done that, but you can see why she didn't.
Then, there's no hope for America. Why bother running a candidate? Waste of money that could be spent on local elections.
The reality is, Kamala could have won that election. Quite easily as well:
1. Don't send bill Clinton to Dearborn to lecture people on how it's ok to bomb Palestine actually
2. Don't try to pivot right on immigration, instead turn hard left: argue for citizenship for all undocumented immigrants with no criminal history
3. Ignore all culture war issues, focus on affordability and nothing else. Promise to raise taxes for the rich, end subsidies for oil and gas companies, and stop sending billions to Israel and other American imperialist vassals
Because polls before and after the election were crystal clear on this point.
Over 30% of Biden 2020 voters said arming genocide was going to affect their vote.
That's BIDEN VOTERS.
80% of Democrats wanted an arms embargo.
Arming Israel meant giving up millions of votes in swing states, in an election that was lost by extremely slim margins in those states.
And before you ask, it was also clear from polling that ending support to Israel would have cost nearly zero votes from her base.
And the reason the Harris campaign didn't know this is because they didn't want to know. Campaign staffers were instructed to mark anyone who raised Gaza as "no response". Attendees of the DNC conventions were literally plugging their ears and shielding their eyes from protests, or even laughing about them.
Trump won by less than 50% of the vote and there are many polls that show the Biden administration's genocide was massively demotivating to democratic voters.
You can’t participate in a reasonable and important discussions once you say that being part of the student protest meant supporting Hamas. It is a disqualifying statement from any discussion on this topic
Attacking Iran is bipartisan consensus unfortunately.
Schumer, for example, is an avowed Zionist and would love to attack Iran. Case in point: His leadership worked to delay Massey and Khanna's war powers resolution until after this attack so they could say "Well, I guess we're too late. Darn."
Iran is not the middle east. In the actual middle east, there has been permanent war for >1500 years. And during all that time the middle east has started wars from Zimbabwe to Norway to Hong Kong.
On might think muslims would have learned something after the defeat of islam (as in the last coherent country/state structure) in 1919-1923 at the hands of muslims. Of course, islam as in the state, started a Naval war with the US, to defend the great institution of slavery ... and when they failed ... they started a second one.
And let's just not discuss whether some muslims (such as IS, but certainly not limited to them) are still trying to bring back slavery. Because we all know the answer.
They absolutely matter. Except on pretty much every foreign policy issue. And also universal healthcare. Oh and also the minimum wage, which has remained the same throughout several supermajorities belonging to both parties since the 70s when it was last updated. Oh also if you think corporations and their leaders should be held accountable for gambling with investor money and destabilizing the economy, or are angainst corporate welfare, unfortunately there’s no one you can vote for. Oh and also if you’re against congresspeople investing while being party to insider information, and with the ability to potentially sway regulatory votes in any given company’s favor, or dole out corporate welfare, unfortunately the leadership of both major parties participate fairly blatantly in that. Oh also, if you think the federal government should demonstrate a modicum of fiscal responsibility and not leave future generations in unrecoverable debt? Unfortunately no options for you. Also, if you would prefer your president not be friendly with a convicted pedophile, unfortunately that’s not gonna happen, we’ve gotta have at least some pedo-friendly people in office on both sides.
The ICE killings, deportations of US citizens, and the general anti-US sentiments around the world show that lesser evil exists, and that not voting can have consequences.
It's a shame that it took all this for the Democrats to even begin the dialog about Israeli money in politics, and perhaps they may even realize that nobody wants to vote for pro-war neoliberals.
The Dem establishment, informed by consultants, loves to go after "gettable" Republicans. Their theory is "Any 'rational' left-leaning voter will have no choice but to vote Dem!" But what they never seem to consider is that moving to the right can indeed disgust some portion of the base who instead will refuse to turn out.
"Lesser evil exists?" What if the "lesser evil" is just the good cop in a barely concealed good cop/bad cop routine?
It's not a bold statements that many senior democrats are thrilled that Trump is attacking Iran. This time, he's doing something they would have liked to but couldn't get away with.
Yes, voting matters, but organizing matters more. Until there's people who don't (secretly or openly) cheer for policies driving the world towards a cliff, voting matters little.
And on no account should you listen to the paid political operatives suggesting that the Democratic party's previous last minute offer would have gone significantly better.
I'm quite sure I was being clear when I called Democrats "pro-war neoliberals". Still, voting Democrat would have saved all those lives taken by the Trump administration up until this point.
Some of those lives, maybe. Did voting for Biden over Trump first time around save lives? Could be. But it also allowed Trump to return, angrier and four more years into his mental decline, because it didn't do anything about the root of the problem, which is the fantastic bipartisan corruption in the US ruling class.
I did not miss that. That's exactly my point. Its two sides of the same coin on this issue; that's why Democrat voters stayed home. Doesn't change the fact that there would be a whole lot less heinous events in and outside the US if MAGA wasn't in power.
Even if you don't support US & IL standing in the frontlines against the terror regime, at least pray for the freedom of the people of Iran, 90m people held hostages by the regime. If you are pro-peace, do not be hypocrite, some wars are needed to defeat evil.
If you're not going to use HN for anything but politics, just leave. Your account is very clearly not a good-faith use of HN and anyone can click through your post history to see it.
Excuse me? What puts you in a position to ask that? Looking at our profiles you joined in 2024, while I've been here since 2011, please don't educate me with such brutal wording of how to behave, especially given I've said nothing wrong except writing opinions which you disagree with. AFAIK this is not USSR here and you're not Stalin.
US needs to start thinking that you are not givinig someone freedom bt bombing them. You have soo much of your problems but your money printing machine is working and that is only reason that you can say that. Its not about 90m people its about your pockets...
Ben Franklin was asked what kind of govt would the newly formed United States have. He was sadly right when he replied 'A republic, if you can keep it'
One of the (many) pretexts for the war, at least from Trump seems to be that Iran 'interfered' in US elections. From the Washington post
'President Donald Trump shared an article about Iran seeking to interfere in U.S. elections on his Truth Social account a couple of hours after U.S. strikes began in Iran early Saturday.
“Iran tried to interfere in 2020, 2024 elections to stop Trump, and now faces renewed war with United States,” the post read, with a link to a piece from Just the News, a conservative website from which Trump frequently shares articles. Shortly after, the president posted another article from the site, albeit unrelated to Iran; it was about the Fulton County, Georgia, prosecutor Fani T. Willis.'
Does the US even have a functioning Congress left? Who will even believe such a preposterous lie? Even the most die hard MAGA supporter will find it hard to believe this fabrication.
It's like Trump doesn't feel the need to even maintain the fig leaf of a causus belli. He must truly feel that he is now the king of the United States to be so emboldened.
Not surprising - people don't count deaths in the Middle East if they're caused by fellow Middle Easterns, except Israel. Living in Europe I've never heard about a protest against Saddam (250,000 - 1,000,000 dead), Khamenei (30,000 in a week?), Assad (> 300,000 civilians) etc. This is business as usual. It's only news if someone else does it.
That’s the Bush doctrine! A belief that you can invade a country, remove the power center, and democracy will spring forth. You don’t even need to speak the local language, read any books about the country you’re attacking, or talk to any locals! Just go for it and democracy will magically spring into existence.
Not directly but OP seemed to intuit some sort of moral justification for this war of aggression ("humanitarian reasons"), and few people believe that to be a key motivating factor for the White House.
> Not directly but OP seemed to intuit some sort of moral justification for this war of aggression
There is an absolute moral justification for this war. Saying that US is the aggressor here is an absolute revisionism of history. Let us not pretend that Islamic Republic minded its own business since its inception, and suddenly the US and Israel decided to wage war on it.
One example of IR's aggression is Beirut bombing in 1983 sponsored and planned by IR.
Both from an international rights and from a moral point of view you're objectively wrong. This is not even worth a discussion. The fact that you need cite a terrorist attack from 1983 to justify an illegal war of aggression in 2026 instigated by a US president without Congressional oversight speaks volumes.
> Islamic Republic minded its own business since its inception
That's a straw man argument since nobody claimed that.
Just to anticipate another weak argument that is a non-starter, a war of aggression is also illegal if it is started under the pretense of caring about a human rights situation. This kind of justification is quite common anyway. For the same reason, preventive wars are also prohibited and immoral. Not even you want to live in a world where such wars are common, you're more likely merely arguing from the perspective of someone whose country you believe to be in a position of strength.
> Both from an international rights and from a moral point of view you're objectively wrong.
Can you clarify the "moral point of view", please?
> This is not even worth a discussion.
How do you know without a discussion that you are right?
> The fact that you need cite a terrorist attack from 1983 to justify an illegal war of aggression in 2026 instigated by a US president without Congressional oversight speaks volumes.
This is a straw man you just made. The 1983 event is to show that Iran was in forever war with the US through either 3rd parties or directly on the territories of other states.
> That's a straw man argument since nobody claimed that.
Now it seems we are in a strange situation. If it is a war of aggression by the US, the implication is that Iran was not aggressive towards US. But we know it is not true. So, which is it?
Also, how would congress authorization make US non-aggressor here?
> Can you clarify the "moral point of view", please?
The moral point of view is that a war of aggression violates the sovereignty of the people in the attacked country. The aggressor country's officials are not elected by the people of the defending country, nor do they in any other way represent the people of that country. They have no right to decide the fate of the people in another country.
> How do you know without a discussion that you are right?
I'm reasonably certain about that because I've studied philosophy and worked in ethics, though not specifically on any issues concerning international rights. I'm also overall a well-educated person with an intact sense of justice.
> This is a straw man you just made. The 1983 event is to show that Iran was in forever war with the US through either 3rd parties or directly on the territories of other states.
No it's not a straw man. You came up with the 1983 event, not me. It would have been a straw man argument if I suddenly had come up with that. My reply to your position is that there are no "forever wars" - this category does not exist in international right and obviously makes no sense. Once you start justifying your attacks with a "forever war" you're in the realm of historical justifications, and these are principally wrong. Why? Because you can find some historical justification for just about any war you want to start. The whole world would be constantly at war if historical justifications were used and deemed acceptable. They are not acceptable.
> Now it seems we are in a strange situation. If it is a war of aggression by the US, the implication is that Iran was not aggressive towards US. But we know it is not true. So, which is it?
I believe you're trolling. In any case, that is not the implication. Not every act of aggression is an act of war. However, the US military has just started a widespread bombing campaign, and that is an act of war. The US is the aggressor not just from an international rights point of view, they're the aggressor as evidenced by the speech of the US President.
> Also, how would congress authorization make US non-aggressor here?
> The moral point of view is that a war of aggression violates the sovereignty of the people in the attacked country. The aggressor country's officials are not elected by the people of the defending country, nor do they in any other way represent the people of that country. They have no right to decide the fate of the people in another country.
Interesting. So, US intervention in WW2 was not moral? Germans did not consent.
> I know that because I've studied philosophy and worked in ethics, though not specifically on any issues concerning international rights. I'm also overall a well-educated person with an intact sense of justice.
And? So, you cannot be mistaken?
> Because you can find some historical justification for just about any war you want to start. The whole world would be constantly at war if historical justifications were used and deemed acceptable. They are not acceptable.
Great. Then no war is acceptable. Any action that is not yet take is in the past, and thus historical. Why respond?
You see, thinking in absolutes will take you only this far. The hardest issues to reason about are in the gray area, where you have to make a judgement call because it is not a clear cut issue. Unlike you, I realize that it's not a simple "aggression" but rather way more complicated issue.
> I believe you're trolling.
I am not. I am having an opposing point of view to yours. However, I am not basing my argument on my personal qualities as the most moral person in the world. I am trying to use universal values and reasoning.
Let's keep it short, I'll give you the last word if you want.
1. The US "intervention" in WW2 was fully justified because the US was attacked. It's also justified to help another country that is attacked, for example the US campaign against Iraq during the First Gulf war was justified. Both were defensive actions, not wars of aggression. Preventive wars are also wars of aggression, though, and classified as such by international law. There are fairly direct equivalents of all of this in regular penal law.
2. I never claimed I cannot be mistaken. It's best to focus on arguments, not persons.
> Great. Then no war is acceptable.
War has at least two sides (often more). A war of aggression is never acceptable. You've got that right. That's also how it's viewed in international law. Defending against a war of aggression is always acceptable. Helping someone defend against a war of aggression is also acceptable. There is a third category, a military intervention by a broad alliance legitimized by some international body. That is in the "it depends" category but plays no role here. Now countries that start wars of aggression know all that and therefore often argue they're just defending themselves. I'm stating that this is a pretense and not a correct justification in this particular case of the US attacking Iran. I'm not planning to go into the details why this is the case, it is obvious enough anyway. Just to make this clear.
I have no comments about the rest of your comment, which, frankly speaking, to me mostly sounds like self-aggrandizing remarks. I was mostly referring to how established international law looks at the matter and your personal views interest me less. Have a good day!
Are you saying those protested actually got funded by Israel and because Iran killed them, now Israel is retaliating?
Now I really wonder if those protests were indeed fueled and funded by Israel, because we have seen videos of mosques being burned down by protestors, which is strange for Shia Muslim country, even if they don't like their government
"A 2020 Online Survey by Gamaan found that 8.8% Iranians identifying as Atheist and a large fraction (22.2%) identifying as not following an organized religion and only 40% self identified as Muslims."
Compare how much Israel was in the news for targeting militants these past two years in Gaza.
How biased is the press? Iran slaughters 36k people in a week and...
crickets. Israel refuses to let its hostages die while Hamas hides out in hospitals and schools and the world is against Israel not Iran.
Because HNers are not so gullible to swallow and regurgitate this pretext. The Trump administration doesn't care about the people of Iran, any more than Bush cared about the Iraqi Kurds or Afghan women. Just a pretext for geopolitics.
The fall of the Iranian regime would be a strategic turning point not just for the Middle East, but globally.
For more than four decades, the Islamic Republic has been one of the primary state sponsors of terror. Hezbollah is not an organic Lebanese movement — it is an Iranian creation. Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad are sustained by Iranian money and weapons. The Houthis’ missile and drone capabilities exist because Tehran supplied and trained them. Shi’a militias in Iraq killed hundreds of Americans with Iranian-provided EFPs. Today, Iranian Shahed drones are striking Ukrainian apartment buildings.
This is not passive instability. It is deliberate, systematic export of violence as state policy.
At the same time, the regime has consistently pursued a nuclear capability while publicly calling for the destruction of Israel and “death to America.” Even if one assumes deterrence logic would hold, a nuclear umbrella for Iran would dramatically increase its freedom to escalate proxy warfare across the region.
The downstream geopolitical effects are not hypothetical. Without Iranian drone and missile transfers, Russia’s ability to sustain certain strike campaigns in Ukraine would be materially degraded. Without heavily discounted Iranian oil shipments, China’s energy calculus shifts, particularly under sanctions pressure. Without Tehran’s funding pipelines, Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis become far more constrained actors rather than semi-state militaries.
There is also precedent for preventive action against nuclear programs. Israel’s 1981 strike on Iraq’s Osirak reactor (Operation Opera) was widely condemned at the time; decades later, most analysts agree it delayed Saddam Hussein’s nuclear ambitions. Likewise, Israel’s 2007 strike on Syria’s Al-Kibar reactor (Operation Orchard) prevented the Assad regime from developing a covert nuclear capability. Both operations were controversial in the moment and regarded as stabilizing in retrospect.
Preventing a hostile regime from acquiring nuclear capability has historically proven wiser than managing it after the fact.
Yes, regime change carries risk. So does allowing the world’s most aggressive revolutionary theocracy to entrench itself indefinitely while arming proxies from Beirut to Sana’a to Moscow. The status quo is not stable. It is violent by design.
If a regime that funds terrorism on three continents, arms Russia during a European war, and openly seeks nuclear weapons is dismantled, history is unlikely to judge that harshly.
There wasn't a war between the Siam and Khmer, just some clashes plus their conflict is irrelevant to the rest of the world. I am not aware of crypto going down during that time? If I remember correctly it was close to ATH.
This was doesn't benefit the US whatsoever. I am getting tired of our taxes going to another useless war, like the Iraq one, that only benefits a foreign entity, aka Israel.
Iran could have been contained and Obama was right on his approach. We don't know the details of the strikes, but I hope it doesn't go into a full blown war, but this will be another Iraq like disaster, and american people are getting tired of doing the bidding of Isreal, a country that is already mirred into doing a genocide. This war is already unpopular in pools. Iran's regime is terrible to its people, but this has the potential to be another disaster where countless of people could die.
>We don't know the details of the strikes, but I hope it doesn't go into a full blown war
Well, if the Chinese are smart, they will capitalize on this opportunity. They can prop up the Iranian regime with intelligence, weapons, and financial support the same way US & EU prop up Ukraine. The purpose would be to bleed US munitions stocks even faster than they already are, as well as increase attritional losses in platforms and personnel. China's stranglehold on rare earths and their export restrictions are making it more difficult for the US to restore its weapons stockpile. I'm sure China can crunch some numbers to identify the point of maximum weakness if the US is forced to sustain an anti-Iran air and naval campaign 30/60/90+ days. Then Xi can try to overlap that window of weakness with one of the two invasion windows against Taiwan (mostly due to weather in the Taiwan Strait). I don't think the PLA is dumb enough to try a full amphibious assault, but they could definitely initiate their blockade then.
I don’t believe China has any intention to support anyone by military means. Best case they will keep on trading and that’s it. Iran is alone. Maybe Turkey makes a crazy move to support seeing it sees itself as next in line if Iran falls. This is the biggest present to European powers, which I think will be hoping that it will keep US busy for rest of Trump’s presidency. They have the Ukraine excuse to distance themselves and let everyone get weaker while they arm themselves up. Internal political tensions in US will also give them leeway to more actively influence American politics and these will be even worse with a long war pitched against a scandal background. Then again, Trump may be a genius, get this done in a couple of months and leave everyone grasping for a new strategy.
If China didn't anticipate the US attacking Iran after Maduro was deposed and the resulting impacts on their oil supplies, then they are asleep at the wheel.
It won't go to a full blown war. They will bomb some stuff and declare victory. Once they sailed two carrier battle groups over there an attack of some sort was a foregone conclusion.
I might be convinced that the Administration was concerned about people being forced to live under Islamic rule if it was as eager for war with Saudi Arabia as it is with Iran.
(I wouldn't support it any more in that case, but I would be more inclined to believe that its motivation might actually have anything to do with "Islamic rule".)
No. There are dozens of countries with despotic regimes, including Israel. And I also have no interest in zionist or any religious ideals exported either. If this were justification we would also be bombing Israel, which has committed far worse crimes than Iran.
Using the game theory, shouldn’t the nice, forgiving and not being a pushover the winning strategy?
I’ve always felt the US won trust and respect with these characteristics. It looks like we are now shifting strategy and I wonder where this will lead to.
The US seems in practice to be doing more of a bomb the bad guys strategy. I guess that could work? It's a bit random - Trump's instinct seems to include attacking Canada and Denmark but he doesn't get buy in for those thankfully.
I think just forego the hypocrisy and have the Israeli's move the White House over there and put one of their own in it instead of pulling the strings.
Those who know their history also know that the current American administration is of a kind that usually ascends following the rules, but then never voluntarily leaves power.
So I don't think Israel has anything to fear there.
Not only the current administration, no US administration in the recent past or foreseeable future will not be okay with fighting wars for Israel at the cost of American lives and wealth. Some might hesitate or push back more than others, but the end result is the same.
Yea! Suggesting the guy who refuses to acknowledge he lost the 2020 election, caused a whole to do on January 6th over it, has printed up TRUMP 2026 hats in the White House, and constantly “jokes” about being owed a 3rd term might not be too interested in following the rules is totally unhinged and a “strong claim”. And the only way to prove you’re serious about this opinion is to gamble on it!
I miss the days when having a financial stake in something was considered a conflict of interest, and not a weakly held belief. Your whole transactional nihilism schtick here is extremely gross. People can have genuine beliefs, and share those without being motivated by pumping their own bags.
Showing that one's claim is not hollow can be achieved in a variety of ways. A prediction market was just a suggestion of one possibility. I'm open to other ways that bojan can show that their claim isn't just empty venting.
DO YOU THINK MOST PEOPLE WOULD AGREE? CARE TO MAKE IT INTERESTING? WHY DON'T YOU PUT IT UP ON POLYMARKET, BRO? OTHERWISE, YOUR WORDS ARE EMPTY VENTING.
Yeah, that's pretty dumb. It's also not what I said. The original comment is a vague insinuation
> Those who know their history also know that the current American administration is of a kind that usually ascends following the rules, but then never voluntarily leaves power.
and not really becoming of a top level Hacker News post. I requested a clarification from bojan and they did not respond to the request. We're all welcome to make our own interpretation of that.
Trump makes a lot of claims of unfair elections, declaring a state of emergency and is talking about a third term. Hard to really know for real what will happen but it is suspicious.
Not OP, but that post clearly was alluding to Hitler coming to power democratically. That they don't need to worry was a very dark joke. Anyway, it's just history.
There are more recent examples in Europe, like Putin, Orban and Vucic. All of them got elected fairly, and all of them engaged in the process of slowly but surely breaking democratic institutions and checks and balances down. The guidebook is actually exactly the same. Putin is now 25 years in power, Orban 16 years and Vucic 14 years.
You could say that those Eastern European democracies were fragile to begin with, but what MAGA is so far very much successfully doing is fully matching the existing proven guidebook.
If Polymarket were legal in my country I'd actually consider betting on it.
Neither the current administration nor Israel are particularly popular with the US public today, and those are correlated in that Israel has particularly lost support from Democrats and Independents in the US, suggesting that a change in power (legislative or executive, and especially both) in the US government could very easily spell much less favorable US policy toward Israel.
Normal people are starting to call themselves goyim and aren’t afraid to call themselves antisemites anymore. You can look at this from many angles (sitting here in Eastern Europe watching history repeat itself again in 4 years is a very discomforting feeling), but all of them are signs of Israel losing US citizenship support at an unprecedented velocity.
And this is why the Ellisons are quickly ramping up their media empire with the purchase of Paramount (which included CBS who is now ran by Bari Weiss), the freshly inked Warner Brothers deal, and their part ownership of US TikTok (of which Oracle hosts the data now).
>Normal people are starting to call themselves goyim and aren’t afraid to call themselves antisemites anymore.
Normal people distinguish between Israel and Jews and call themselves antizionists. It's Zionists who blur the distinction.
There are several countries throughout history where the citizens have been absolutely obsessed with their own race and considered the crusader state to be the sole representative of it. It never ended well.
And they’ve blurred it so much and thrown around the accusation so frequently and with so little hesitancy that many people are starting to simply not care anymore.
No, no one who calls themself an anti-semite is a normal person, and the people doing that are still a narrow bigoted fringe (though, yes, it is a fringe that Trumpism has emboldened tk greater boldness, like many other overlapping bigotries, and somewhat paradoxically given the way the Trump Administration is itself supportive of not only Israel in the broad sense, but of accelerating the policies most opposed by the public in particular).
Most of the opponents of Israel and its policies in the US are either anti-Zionists who are not and do not identify as anti-Semites, or people who don't even identify as anti-Zionists just opponents of Israeli policy. And many in both groups are Jewish themselves.
More specifically, seems to be driven by Netanyahu's political accounting. Starting a potential major war going into mid-terms is pretty inconvenient for Trump who could be looking at impeachment over Epstein. But Netanyahu is facing trial and October-7 investigation commissions more imminently and can't wait that long. Netanyahu trumps Trump, evidently.
It was Trump or his immediate environmetn who asked Israeli to attack Iran first (better optics); Israel would have never done this without American approval.
Did Israel want this to happen though ? Yes. But so did the Americans. I guess the negotiations went badly.
I suspect the Venn diagram of those who: 1) are aggrieved that America covers the bulk of the cost of world policing and 2) believe that America has a natural right to unilaterally determine foreign regime change, overlap greatly.
I knew it was foolish, but I really was somewhat hopeful that the American regime’s stated doctrinal shift was true and they really were going to fuck right off from the world stage, even just a little. Naturally, we suffer the opposite.
Trump also said that when he says things he means them, unlike Obama's red lines in Syria (his words). When he said that, it was pretty clear he couldn't back off of attacking Iran.
I assume it took so long because he's going for regime change, not just a few bombings. When Iraq invaded Kuwait, it took the US 5 months to launch a counter-invasion (mostly because of coalition building).
If Iran sinks a carrier then the us congress will declare an actual war and that will seal Irans fate. Also, seal the fate of hundreds of thousands of lives.
Anyone can do whatever they want. I’m just saying sinking a us carrier doesn’t stop the conflict and, instead, makes it 2 or 3 orders of magnitude worse.
Iran also has a gang of murderous theocratic nutters running it, massacring their citizens for taking to the streets and singing songs, undermining foreign societies, and lending their knowhow and drones to other, bigger psychopaths for their invasions. It'll gladden my heart if the leadership is destroyed, even if some old pretty masonry gets chipped along the way.
I don’t know why anyone even bothers with this anymore. Literally every single word that comes out of his mouth is a lie. It’s actually staggering to think about. It’s like he is incapable of doing anything that right, correct, or true.
Currently an absolute shit load of C17s landing in Germany after leaving the PG region. I guess we know which country finally caved and let the US use them for whatever fresh conquest this is.
Germany is one of the most pro-Israel countries and known for using excessive police voilance against pro-Palestina protestors and strongly denies that there is a genocide going on in Gaza.
Regardless of how it ends, and it can go both ways, we're witnessing history here. This feels like a much bigger development than Russia-Ukraine. Iran is a major partner for Russia and China, mostly for military technology and oil. Hope it's not a start of WW3.
But russia-ukraine is also a much more contained war between 2 parties that will likely end in a stalemate.
The middle east is a much more tangled web of alliances and hatreds, i think the iranian regime falling would have much more harder to predict second order geopolitical effects.
Ukraine will never de jure give up those territories and majority of nations will never recognize those as part of Russia. And it’s 20%, not 30%. Pre full scale war it was 7%, now it is 19%, so during the five years they’ve captured 12% of Ukraine's territory.
Russian goals were:
- Quick decapitation - fail
- Change of government - fail
- Prove that majority of Ukrainians are phone Russians and the moment greater Russia comes everyone will see that Ukraine is not a real state - fail
- Make second Belarus out of Ukraine - fail
- Stop NATO enlargement, Finland and Sweden joined NATO essentially doubling border with NATO - fail
- Dissuade Ukraine from joining EU and make it pro Russian first - fail
- Prove that Russia is a great military power on par with US that can topple regimes at will - fail
- Make Russia strategically independent- fail, Russia is now completely dependent on China
- Destabilize EU - fail, Europe is united like never under US/Russia/China threat
This war will enter history as one of the worst blunders.
I hope you're joking. This is such "Ukrainians are just Russians by a different name" logic. China, Belarus, and North Korea are deep in this conflict, so are all the European countries. There's no stalemate end to this war, only a temporary cease fire or the collapse of Russia.
Depends how you count “big”. Russia-Ukraine has had about 1 million deaths, and has completely changed how Europe thinks about security- it’s hardly a sideshow. Then again, not much territory has changed hands and there has been no regime change yet.
Not true, prior to 2022 February Russia controlled small parts of Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts, now they control them almost entirely, as well as good chunks of Zaporizhzhia and Kherson oblasts.
All were captured during their thrift store blitzkrieg. Kherson, Zaporizhzhia and Mariupol were captured because pro Russian rats sabotaged mine defenses in Kherson oblast.
The casualty-to-death ratio in Ukraine is surprising for modern times, especially on the Russian side. Counting civilians, Ukrainians, Russians, I can see the death count being close to 1M. Partisan sources already put Russian combat losses at around 1.2M personnel. Ukrainian losses might be more than half what Russian losses are. The 1M deaths estimate doesn't seem outlandish.
No it's not. This is an air strike campaign, no boots on the ground. It'll end in two weeks. There is no chance China or Russia get involved, like last time, so "WW3" is completely non-credible.
The previous campaign lasted a whole 13 days and WW3 didn't start. I'm not sure why anybody thinks it'll be different now or why Russia or China would bother going to war for Iran. That makes zero sense.
> The previous campaign lasted a whole 13 days and WW3 didn't start. I'm not sure why anybody thinks it'll be different now or why Russia or China would bother going to war for Iran. That makes zero sense.
We did not move 1/3 of operational USAF capacity and 33% of our deployable Navy for limited strikes.
Okay, and where's the army? I'm not sure what you're expecting without boots to put on the ground. Are the pilots gonna be ejecting to go hunt Khamenei? This argument is meaningless. Again, none of this can lead to WW3 and none of this can turn into a protracted war as in Ukraine-Russia.
You can stop when you have no idea what you're talking about, you know.
You seem like a Trump voter who voted for no more wars doing damage control
Boots on the ground can happen at any time if Iran manages to either hit one of the thousands of US assets in the region or worse they resort to terrorism with a theatrical attack like 9/11 which ended up costing so many lives , money and freedoms ranging from TSA literally up your ass to the destruction of privacy online and offline…..and of course as we all know boots on the ground
The big difference with previous campaign is that now, the Iranian regime is facing existential threat. While the previous war was more a of a show for respective domestic publics, this one feels like there is no coming back.
Of course Russia or China won't go to war for Iran - nobody is saying that. They can get involved though, just as Europe is involved in Ukraine war.
That is not to say bombing doesn't have its uses in war. The bombing of the oilfields of Ploesti in Romania severely damaged the German war machine. But it took Russian boots on the ground in Berlin to effect a German surrender.
Being Serbian, the bombing campaign of 1999. was successful. It lead to the (temporary, 12-years long) regime change, and to the de-facto independence of Kosovo. It ended the war.
There might be boots on the ground eventually given Trump's speech.
>The lives of courageous American heroes may be lost and we may have casualties. That often happens in war, but we’re doing this not for now. We’re doing this for the future, and it is a noble mission
Iran is hitting back at US bases so it could be related to those risks, rather than a full invasion.
(Crazy idea, maybe the people shouldn’t be left in the dark about their government’s war plans by having a deliberate legislative body debate and vote on it)
It's a sinister statement, but despite everything the U.S. has moved to the region, they didn't move the stuff they would need to move for ground operations.
As big as this is, the Russia-Ukraine war pretty much marked the end of the post-WW2 era and redefined global relations between the powers. In that sense, this is yet another major shift within this new era. But also, the series of events that led to this point does connect to the Russia-Ukraine war, and maybe doesn't happen without it.
> And they will again appear weak and incapable, unable to help their allies
Iran and Russia have various partnership agreements, but are not allies. And Russia has already demonstrated that it doesn't support what are, on paper, close allies in the CSTO, so not defending a non-ally strategic partner really doesn't move the needle on their credibility.
China buys Iranian oil, if they’ll start to but oil from non-sanctioned countries it will push prices up. But the biggest reason for prices to go up is the risk that Iran will attack tankers in the strait of Hormuz or oil infrastructure on Arabian peninsula.
I don't think it's bigger than Russia-Ukraine - it's part of it. This is all about destabilising Iran's incumbent government, which is probably a good thing at the moment. It'll damage supply lines to Russia's Ukraine offensive, give the chance for Iranian citizens to rise up against Khamenei and the IRGC and break the command chain for their foreign proxy operations. Part of Dugan's work on geopolitics, which they seem to be following to the word (c'mon guys seriously?) suggests that Moscow and Tehran should be allied which they are behind the scenes.
As for the nuclear threat, literally Iran said it was going to destroy Israel to the point it had a massive countdown clock in Tehran until Israel blew it up, so meh. If I was on the receiving end of that threat I'd make it a policy to respond to it, escalation or not. I make no claims of the accuracy of the threats past IAEA being unable to verify they aren't enriching stuff.
Doubt it'll escalate into WW3. The only other powers involved are Russia, who are totally hands tied with Ukraine if they like it or not and China is only interested keeping what's left in its sphere of influence later through their outreach initiatives. I suspect most Middle Eastern countries will be quite happy about this conflict as they have persistent problems with Iran as well from the Houthis, Hezbollah and tens of other factions. They won't want to say anything though in case their own citizens turn on them.
The cringeworthy thing is how the US gov are communicating this and that does the operation a lot of damage. It's really quite terrible. Sounds like it was written by a bunch of 9 year olds after too many sugary drinks. Urgh.
> The cringeworthy thing is how the US gov are communicating this and that does the operation a lot of damage. It's really quite terrible. Sounds like it was written by a bunch of 9 year olds after too many sugary drinks. Urgh.
Thats because its not written for you and I. Its written for people who struggle to communicate at an adult level, which is a shockingly large portion of the US.
I think “Make America Great Again” was effective because it means whatever the person hearing it wants it to mean, and there’s no obvious metric by which to measure its success.
The policies on the left tend to have a lot more nuance, which is much harder to fit on a hat.
More like this is a small piece of the puzzle in Russian-Ukraine war. Iran plays quite a big role in supplying Russians. If Iran is taken out, power balance in that war may change too.
I don’t dispute that fact, but the Jews that have immigrated from there have grew up in the Soviet Union and in the Soviet education system, and therefore speak Russian
Additional context: the comment above me stated 2m people have emigrated from Russia to Israel it’s more correct to say that they have emigrated from the Soviet Union
I have to wonder how many are in governmental roles and realized they can steer the US into conflicts and ruining itself without any of those involved identifying as Russian. It's the cleanest backdoor for espionage that there ever was.
The most likely and capable retaliation will be cyber/info wars.
Iran has sophisticated influence operations and will likely flood social media with disinformation designed to deepen political divisions and erode trust in institutions.
This advice serves even if you don’t believe the above. Be deeply skeptical of all viral content in the coming days and weeks, especially anything designed to change your opinions, or provoke outrage/fear. Verify before sharing. Expect deepfakes. Stick to primary sources when possible.
There are always unanticipated consequences in war. Argentina never thought in a million years that an attack on the practically undefended Falklands would result in the loss of the General Belgrano.
Remember when we bombed Iran at Fordow? It happened less than a year ago. Iran sent some perfunctory retaliation, and everyone forgot the whole affair. Same with this. Nothing ever happens.
I think I should refrain from commenting political posts, but this one has a possibility of being something major.
However, looking at how the US president has abused power, silenced those who are against the draft dodging crybaby and his league of human trafficking millionaires, I feel this is yet another try to move focus from US domestic probs to something else. I see no honesty or greater reason for this attack or justification for it. While I'm no fan of Iran's autocratic regime, US is slipping towards into being one, as well.
US president has now active war operations in Venezuela, soon lightning the Cuba situation on fire as well, not to forget planning to take Greenland and Canada, too.
That's honestly not bad for the president of peace. Nobel committee should take a look at nominating this guy for a peace prize
It will easily be a victory for him. He's smarter that non-maga give him credit for. Bomb Iran with overwhelming force & it will be a media victory. That doesn't mean that it's right or wrong or that there won't be consequences. But, in the short term it will be a political win. Democrats are already taking the bait and saying that they are outraged that the supreme leader was whacked w/out congressional approval.
Another mid east war entirely on Israel’s behalf, another war Americans will pay tax for, die for- just so Israel can keep grabbing few parcels of lands from Palestine.
I don't want to insult you but your president is a populist and a TV personality. He is not a policy maker, he is more like an actor. So your country went into war mode by changing the name of the Department of Defence to Department of War. This was not a cosmetic change. This means peace times are over and you are in war. Your government acts accordingly.
Since you are still a democracy find those people who make your policy decisions. It's not that yellow man.
And now of course you're going to label me an AIPAC nutter, but in this particular case I think the evidence is fairly plain given the collaboration between the two countries on this. If Israel had done this by their lonesome or if the US had not involved Israel then you could make the case that they reached this point independently, right now it looks to me as if collusion is a 100% certainty and that the US is executing a foreign policy that will not benefit it but that will benefit Israel. It also makes me wonder whether this will end up as a Venzuela re-run where the top names change but everything else remains the same, just with US companies the beneficiaries of the oil, which is, besides policy the main driver behind these things anyway.
The attack was reportedly timed for a surprise attack on Iranian leaders who happened to be in the same location at this time. They even attacked during the daytime for a risky surprise attack. To suggest the attack had anything to do with the holiday is beyond ridiculous. Also ridiculous to think they would intentionally attack a random school.
We should wait for more corroboration before we jump to conclusions about circumstance and attribution. In the Russia/Ukraine conflict, I've seen Russian's use footage and images from other conflicts to claim Ukraine is doing something underhanded.
We've already seen Israel do this over and over again in Gaza. We've seen Zionist media try to lie about it, but if you've been following what Israel has been doing for the past two years, you'll know that this is how they operate.
These days kinetic wars are accompanied by online information wars. What's the harm in waiting for corroboration and more evidence in a rapidly evolving situation?
It's certainly credible that US/Israel bombed a school. But it's also credible that Iran would lie about US/Israel bombing a school. In these situations we need a higher standard of evidence than "credible". I don't think that's a radical position.
I find Iranian government sources far more credible than Zionist sources. Believe what you want, but this was an unprovoked act of aggression following two years of genocide and 75 years of ethnic cleansing. It's crystal clear who is responsible for all of the death and destruction.
You've been uncritically supportive of Israel in plenty of other threads on HN already so I'm not sure if your exaggeration of my comment should even be taken serious.
Israel has a massive lobbying effort in the United States and that's not exactly news, on top of that there have been many documented pieces of interaction between Trump and Nethanyahu that seem to be evidence that Trump is doing a lot of things to please Israel, besides that they are actively collaborating on these attacks.
Well, we're certainly not collaborating with West Africa to bomb France. Not even the Philippines, Taiwan, and Uyghur and Hong Kong dissidents to bomb China.
I mean, it could just be the evangelicals hoping to start a holy war that heralds the End of Days. And now that I type that out, I have to agree with your implicit position that it's definitely the more rational catalyst.
There is no comparison between Iran and Venezuela. Maduro had Cuban guards because his people seem to dislike him more than the US; his administration included. Also Maduro is hated by both neighboring countries elites and peasants. Situation couldn’t be more different in Iran, there are hundreds of thousands of committed supporters in Iran and Arabic countries (watch some videos where the Arabs celebrates the strikes at their own countries)
Also in power balance, Venezuela is a joke militarily. Iran has the capacity to end calm life in the GCC and possibly disrupt oil flows. Really an orange and apple comparison. Case in point today, Iran was able to project its missile to several countries in a couple hours.
> Iran has the capacity to end calm life in the GCC and possibly disrupt oil flows
I'm genuinely surprised the mines haven't rolled out, to the point that I believe they won't be. (They were–in the initial strikes–destroyed or incapacitated, or they never existed.)
> Iran was able to project its missile to several countries in a couple hours
To minimal effect. And every launch exposes a missile and firing team to American and Israeli jets flyig in uncontested airspace.
There is credible reporting (Reuters etc.) that ships are being turned around, so it does appear that the mines (or at least threat thereof) have been deployed. Either way, as long as the threat of sinking is alive the strait is uninsurable and is for all practical purposes closed.
Fair point, but the IRGC telling ships to turn around, as opposed to the ships themselves doing it (as per reporting) would imply that the Strait has been blockaded in some fashion. It remains to be seen if this is all a bluff, I'm just as skeptical as this would be their last option, but given the strikes on other Gulf countries, the threat seems a bit more plausible of actually being real.
Agreed that you can't compare Venezuela and Iran. But I challenge you to check which are the top three countries in the world by oil reserves.
Israel needs it, Trump wants it, this was going to happen either now or next year. The potential for escalation is massive and I sincerely hope that it will not. Iran is a problem, but Israel is also a problem and the United States is becoming a bigger problem every day. It would be nice if the people in charge of this planet could hold back from throwing matches into the powder kegs for a while.
Reserves are irrelevant, you can’t pump oil from the ground at a moment notice and building the infrastructure requires long-term stability especially for oil infrastructure which is large and hard to protect. Iran does x4 times the volume of Venezuela in oil and x10 in gas.
The issue with Iran is that it’s selling energy outside of the US system. This was less of an issue 20 years ago when the persians needed to funnel the money back to the Western system at a cost so that they can access world trade. The situation changed today as they can mostly survive on China imports and completely bypass the US financial system. Iran has half the exports (in total value!) of Tunisia at x8-9 the population. Something doesn’t add up.
> It would be nice if the people in charge of this planet could hold back from throwing matches into the powder kegs for a while
That’s not how the world works. The relative peace of the last 20 years or so was mostly because US hegemony was uncontested. This might be no longer the case. Someone in the far East will be watching for opportunities.
> Reserves are irrelevant, you can’t pump oil from the ground at a moment notice and building the infrastructure requires long-term stability especially for oil infrastructure which is large and hard to protect.
Who says these are rational actors. I think it is a bit much for coincidence.
> Iran does x4 times the volume of Venezuela in oil and x10 in gas.
Until yesterday. We'll see whether their infrastructure is going to survive this war.
> The issue with Iran is that it’s selling energy outside of the US system.
I'm well aware of that.
> This was less of an issue 20 years ago when the persians needed to funnel the money back to the Western system at a cost so that they can access world trade. The situation changed today as they can mostly survive on China imports and completely bypass the US financial system. Iran has half the exports (in total value!) of Tunisia at x8-9 the population. Something doesn’t add up.
What doesn't add up is that there are a lot of parties that would like to see regime change in Iran, including a lot of Iranians. The question always is whether the fire that you light remains contained or not and Iran is very much not like Venezuela in that sense.
> That’s not how the world works.
I'm well aware of that too. But that doesn't change how I feel about it.
> The relative peace of the last 20 years or so was mostly because US hegemony was uncontested. This might be no longer the case.
In no small part because of the idiot-in-charge.
> Someone in the far East will be watching for opportunities.
And that's precisely why I think there is a massive potential for escalation here.
> Until yesterday. We'll see whether their infrastructure is going to survive this war.
None of their energy infra. was hit and I don’t see it happening. Hitting their energy infra. will result in them hitting the GCC oil infra. This is more likely, in my opinion, part of the negotiations. They couldn’t agree to the terms of their power projection, so they went to the field to test it out.
> What doesn't add up is that there are a lot of parties that would like to see regime change in Iran, including a lot of Iranians.
You are buying into Western propaganda. Not that I know about the conditions on Iran and the Mullah popularity. It’s not possible to gauge that since freedom of information is limited there but I wouldn’t trust the latest campaign either. Only time will tell on this one.
> In no small part because of the idiot-in-charge.
This is where we disagree; though I could agree that the democrats will have handled this differently but not necessarily in a non-violent way.
> And that's precisely why I think there is a massive potential for escalation here.
I still think this one will pass. Though China will probably stick to its own deadlines when it’s ready on its own terms.
The current Israeli government obviously has a great deal of influence in the US government. That much is not conspiracy theory. The evangelicals involved in project 2025 have a very real interest in middle eastern conflict from an ideological standpoint. If you want a cynical follow the money villain look no farther than Al Saud and friends. Also, this weakens Russia and further restricts oil reaching China from anywhere. Every oil feed reaching China over water is at this point being curtailed. Looking for a single reason is very hollywood, enough interests aligned.
The US president hasn't required a new war resolution since Afghanistan. They each keep stretching it farther and farther. It cannot be rescinded without a veto-proof majority. If there was a veto proof majority willing to stand up to the executive, a conviction and removal would have already occurred.
The assertion that the US is a democracy is nisguided. It will be downgraded by vdem this month to an electoral autocracy. It is also worth noting that it only takes senators receiving the votes of <7% of the total population to filibuster all legislation, prevent overriding any vetos, and halt all impeachment trials. The fact it has looked like a democracy for so long is astounding.
> Looking for a single reason is very hollywood, enough interests aligned
Correct. But interests need to be animated to have power. Who was arguing that this should be a priority, and a priority now, who is familiar in the White House?
> The assertion that the US is a democracy is nisguided. It will be downgraded by vdem this month to an electoral autocracy
This is nonsense.
> halt all impeachment trials
False. Senate Rule 193 sets time limits on debate for impeachment trials [1].
You seem to have a singular villain ready to point at. I do not see it. The president reportedly thinks whatever the last person to speak said. So are you proposing a mastermind or simply a catalyst?
As far as vdem goes, Lindberg has recently as much as confirmed they will down grade the us below democracy status.
> Lindberg has recently as much as confirmed they will down grade the us below democracy status
I mean, that's interesting from a political theoretical perspective. And if you want to put sacred meaning into it, sure. I'm not sure most people would take a decade-old Swedish institute as a harbinger of whether or not America is a demoracy too seriously (versus other sources, to be clear).
You are right that unless the eiu or others follow suit it would be less meaningful. On the senate conviction, my point is that only 33 senators need to oppose a conviction to stop it. Or to let a veto stand. The smallest states get the same number of senators. If those votes were evenly split, and it was the typical 50-60% turnout. It would actually only be 2-3% of the populace needed.
We got too deep in the tree. Nixon could have gone a different way. Many of the senators that asked him to leave had constituencies that would have supported their refusal to convict. The 33 gop senators representing the smallest states only represent less than 20% of the population, and they usually win by less than 60% in elections with turnouts less than 60%. That is where I get the 90% from.
Even taking into account that not all small states are right leaning, and theoretically there could be 100% turnout, we are still talking about a situation wjere it takes over 90% agreement among the population to remove a president. That isn't a high bar, that is a complete lack of accountability. It isn't just removal. The whole system was designed by people so terrified of the tyranny of the majority that they neglected to forsee such uneven populations leading to the potential for a tyranny of the minority. The lack of any meaningful consensus for judiciary appointments is also a solid sign of competitive authoritarianism. But we are getting far off on a tangent. I really am intrigued that I'm missing some actor or faction. Will you get downvoted for the hypothesis? Or have you already replied with it and it got shadow blocked?
> wjere it takes over 90% agreement among the population to remove a president
...no? Majority of the House and two thirds of Senators doesn't require 90%. Nixon still had way more than 10% of support in the country when his removal from office was imminent.
> have you already replied with it and it got shadow blocked?
I don't think I've written anything that got shadow blocked for many years.
I can certainly see potential positive outcomes as you say. Also, this stretches the original war powers resolution from Afghanistan a lot less than most US attacks. Iran does actually support terrorism across the globe. I do worry about implementation.
I was hoping someone serious (versus the everything is AIPAC nutters) had put thought into it.
Rubio and Walz have been Iran hawks. But I’m not yet convinced they were unilateral. Instead, it looks like a Rice-Powell alignment of vague interests with enough groupthink that dissenters weren't in the room.
AIPAC isn't a person. Who is the person who convinced the President to order these strikes? It could be someone at AIPAC. There is no evidence for that, I suspect, because it's highly unlikely.
Literally, perhaps true...at least initially. But:
- Take a look at how poorly the fall of the Iraqi gov't in 2003 actually worked out for the U.S. and its regional friends.
- Iran has 92 million people, very deep issues with being able to support that large a population, and very long borders. If things really went to crap there, it could produce tens of millions of desperate refugees.
> take a look at how poorly the fall of the Iraqi gov't in 2003 actually worked out
This is an immensely risky operation. But part of the reason for Iraq being a shitshow was De-Ba'athification. You don't need to clean house to effect regime change. My guess would be we're hoping someone in the IRGC disappears Khamenei and a few senior commanders and then makes a call to Geneva.
This is assuming a coherent national security strategy, which is unlikely. We know a lot of generals disagree with the attack on Iran, and none of the geopolitical experts I trust think it is a good idea, be they conservative, realist, liberal, leftist or something else.
There's a number of reasons this is happening now that I think are more plausible than American interest:
- Saudis want Iran weak as they are primary geopolitical rivals. There are deep ties between the Saudi dynasty and the Trump dynasty. Without Iranian support, the Houthis will have a much tougher time. (Although they should not be underestimated regardless. They are not an Iranian proxy, but an ally, and field one of the strongest armies in the whole region.)
- Israel wants Iran weak, and pro-zionism is a strong wedge in American politics. Again, there's also a lot of personal business interests involved. Iranian allies and proxies are the chief causes of grief for Israel's expansionist agenda, and a very credible threat to their national security.
- This war conveniently moves the headlines away from a faltering economy, the Epstein files, and ICE overreach. There's probably hope that it will improve chances with the 'war president bonus' in the mid-terms. It could also be a convenient cover for and excuse to increase rigging in the elections.
Expecting positive regime change after bombing a school full of little girls is... naive. This is not how you turn an enemy into a friend.
I know a lot of Americans who remember 1979 and don't care if they are ever friends again. I agree, I also don't think this is a coherent national security strategy.
The countries in middle east want Iran to be weak, not to fall.
I think that from the point of the neighbouring countries, Iran is fine as it is. Israel and the USA keep it in check, it is under sanctions, which are both beneficial for its adversaries.
If the regime in Iran were to fall, first of all you would have repercussions on the neighbors, (refugees and the like), and instability. But also, in the longer run, the chance of a more better government, which could make the country stronger than it is.
The rumor I heard was that high-level Pentagon generals had subtly suggested that Trump target Iran. The reason was to distract his attention from Greenland. Logic goes that if you have a reality TV star who built his brand on being a tough guy in the White House, it's far better that he attack a theocratic dictatorship that funds a host of terrorist organizations and whose country is already on the verge of collapse than a NATO ally and fellow democracy that didn't do anything to us.
Was a news article from a reputable source (Reuters or PBS?), around the time of the Greenland flap in early January, but Google Search now sucks and the results are all polluted with news articles from the strikes today so I wasn't able to find it again.
This is bipartisan. The long term goals were to start with Libya, Iraq, Syria and then Iran. The latter two required Russia to be tied up in another conflict.
They don't explicitly put Iran in their portfolio because for Reality TV it is better to be a peace lover.
Now, undoubtedly the Democrats will pretend to complain, but Schumer and Pelosi want this, too.
[I am expanding on your comment, not trying to contradict anything.]
I'm not disagreeing with you but "Dept of War" is ENTIRELY a cosmetic change. It's literally just a name. There are people, mostly with desk jobs, who really want to feel like badasses and they really want the Dept of War. The real human consequences of this are unimportant to them and sadly unimportant to the rest of us also.
If you go to https://www.war.gov/ it says Department of War. The person in charge calls himself the Secretary of War. Warfighters are being sent into Iran. Presumably to engage in warfare. People are gonna die.
Indeed it was, from 1789 to 1947. It was then changed to Departments of Army and Air Force, later the National Military Establishment, and finally the Department of Defense in 1949.
Ukraine’s TV personality leader, Volodymyr Zelenskyy seems to be doing alright. Also went into war, but not of their own doing, and he has been measured, insightful, aware, throughout this whole war.
There’s more to it than Trump being a TV show personality. Far too complex and insidious than a simple quip.
I don't think the American people can change their country's policy oriented toward a constant state of war, aggression, and invasions of other countries under the current system. This is a constant state policy, regardless of the party or the president. So it can be said that the United States is not a democracy. Money and capital rule, not the people.This can only be changed by a fundamental shift that empowers people over capital.
Of course, I agree that Trump is worse because, by removing the mask of civility and attacking others without first bothering to create propaganda and a narrative about how it is for the greater good and justice, he made the plundering and crimes faster and more efficient.
> don't think the American people can change their country's policy oriented toward a constant state of war, aggression, and invasions of other countries under the current system
Of course we can. People disagreeing with you doesn't mean they don't exist.
These are the Senate seats in play this cycle [1]. How many of those do you think would be flipped based on any foreign policy item?
If you're on this thread you pay attention to foreign policy. The notion that someone doesn't–not isn't informed, but literally doesn't to any degree–is almost more foreign than the strangest countries we read about. But the truth is most Americans have never ranked any foreign policy item as being in their top three issues since the Vietnam War.
We could change it if we wanted to. We don't because it's not personally pertinent or worse, it's boring. (And, I'd argue, because a lot of foreign-policy oriented activists are preaching for the choir versus trying to actually effect change.)
Americans ranked foreign policy as the third most relevant issue for them in 2016, tied with immigration. [1] It's disingenuous to ignore that both parties have traditionally had mostly the same foreign policy stance. So you're voting for forever war, or forever war. How can it be a deciding factor for voters in this context?
But 2016 was different because Trump was the first candidate in some time to run on something even vaguely flirting with being anti-war, as he actively called out the endless wars of the political establishment, and argued that America first should not involve us wasting our money bombing countries half-way around the world. It was a relatively weak position but even that was enough to get 13% of voters to declare foreign policy as their key issue, tied with immigration. And Trump ended up winning their vote by an 18 point margin.
Anti-war is one of the relatively large number of issues that Americans largely agree on, but the political establishment makes it impossible to vote for, because you'll never find a mainstream candidate running on a platform that aligns with public interest. So for instance 84% of Americans think that "the American military should be used only as a last resort", that Congressional approval should be required for military action, and so on. [2]
> 84% of Americans think that "the American military should be used only as a last resort", that Congressional approval should be required for military action, and so on
In general, yes. What fraction of Trump voters do you think would agree that Trump should face any consequences for bypassing the Congress?
Or Obama's, or Bush's, or Clinton's? By the time somebody is in office and engaging in a pro-war platform, his supporters will look the other way. Even moreso in modern American politics where people are often no longer even voting for people they like, but for people they loathe less than the alternative. It's why electoral choice, which is largely absent in America, is so critical for the functioning of a healthy system.
That's assuming the people don't vote for this because they want this.
Many Americans have a hero complex. Their national mythology post World War II includes them being the "good guys" against the "bad guys." That mythology needs a bad guy.
Trump ran on "no wars" because he was going to spend all his focus on America instead of burning taxpayer money dropping bombs overseas. I'm sure some people voted for him at least in part for that reason. You can argue that they should have known he was liar, but there is support for it. Also, with the new concentration camps, the soldiers in our streets, and the nazi salutes I'm not sure the whole "good guys" against the "bad guys" narrative is something trump voters care about at all. They seem pretty comfortable playing the "bad guys" part anyway.
The moment they made that name change and stated their expansionist agenda it finally became clear to me that this wasn't just MAGA anymore, this was actual fascism.
Whether you think the current targets are legitimate or not, the fact that the U.S. is going to war without seeking any democratic approval anymore is deeply troubling.
> The moment they made that name change and stated their expansionist agenda it finally became clear to me that this wasn't just MAGA anymore, this was actual fascism.
I'm pretty sure MAGA was always fascism. I mean, all the signs were there and people were sounding alarm bells almost immediately.
I an opposed to Trump's unhinged offensive, but let's not fall prey to media narrative. Nobody called similar actions "fascism" before (or they did, as the word is thrown around casually in the US, but then nothing has changed). Similarly, when Obama vastly expanded deportations and the like, nobody cared.
I don't like Trump. At all. I think he's a terrible president on the whole and a shameless opportunist. But I don't like one-sided politics and hypocrisy even more so, and I dislike hysteria. History and long term trends paint us a different picture of current events. Most people's horizons are limited to the shallow, tendentious, cherry-picked, and sensationalist news cycle, unfortunately, regardless of outlet. Should we criticize Trump? Yes. But we should criticize all leadership when they do what they should not be doing.
BTW, the Dept. of War was the original name from 1789 to 1947. Curiously, it was soon after the change to Dept. of Defense that people like Eisenhower began to worry about the Military-Industrial Complex. That should give us pause. The name change conceals the intention, and coincides with a hungry imperial war machine that WWII helped bring into existence. Recall that Americans were largely isolationist before that.
This is clearly not fascism, and not very different from what the US is accustomed to. Let's not waste the meaning of words by throwing them at any occasion.
What do you think fascism is? What we have is a populist, nationalist, racist, far-right regime headed by a man that our highest court has ruled can't be held accountable for his "official" actions and who acts like a dictator (as further evidenced in this case by going to war without congress) who uses to the power of the government to attack/threaten/suppress his "enemies" here in the US. If this isn't textbook fascism you must admit that it at least checks a lot of the same boxes
Well this is not fascism, this is, as you said, a populist regime.
The far left loves to categorize everything at its right as "fascist". The infamous Berlin wall was the "antifascist protection wall". In Yugoslavia, you'd hear every day at the radio a rant about the "fascists", even though the country was communist.
There are many definitions of what "fascism" is. The best I think is to refer to the historical italian fascist government, to understand it.
Btw presidential immunity is not fascist, many countries have similar laws.
> The best I think is to refer to the historical italian fascist government, to understand it.
Sure, why don't we:
- leader with a cult of personality
- an idealized story of the prosperous past (make america great again)
- pinning blame for the nation's downfall on marginalized minorities and persecuting them (immigrants, socialists)
- aggressively anti-socialist/leftist, protection of capital and suppression of labor rights
- glorification of violence (ICE, hate crimes, "department of war")
- ramping up existing and starting new imperialistic conflicts (Venezuela, Cuba, now Iran)
- rolling back personal liberties (freedom of speech, right to due process, women's rights)
- suppression of the free press given unfavorable reporting (revocation of TV licenses, revocation of access to white house)
- clear desire with ongoing attempts to dismantle democracy (capitol attack, violating separation of powers by illegally withholding funding for programs and violating court orders)
- demands complete subservience rather than competence in all appointed roles
- all of this with full support of the elites (clear shift in the 2nd term)
If you want to argue that the US isn't fascist because Trump hasn't completely dismantled the judicial branch yet, be my guest.
But fascism isn't just a concrete political system where a dictator has absolute power, it's an ideology, and Trump and the Republican party are clearly fascist in that sense - that is their goal. It's just a question of whether they'll succeed in dismantling the judicial branch before his term is over.
The only people who benefit from this sort of language policing are the fascists themselves.
P.S. I probably shouldn't be saying this but the fact that you refer to people sounding the alarm as "the far left" really gives the game away.
Each point, aside from the cult of personality regarding Trump, is shallow.
For instance, the US didn't start a war against Venezuela or Cuba under Trump. America was much more aggressive in the 80´s, if you want to compare.
Immigration can totally be a problem, and voters in the western world increasingly ask their leaders to address it. It's not "democracy" when it suits your ideas and "fascism" when it doesn't.
Opposing socialism isn't "fascist" and afaik the Trump admin has done nothing significant about it: social expenses and the deficit are still growing faster than ever. What is mainly happening is that ressources are being redirected toward the retired, who are influencial voters and a growing demographic. It's the same everywhere in the western world.
Again, all of those measures are very superficial and nothing like what real fascism did in Italy or what Nazis did when they came to power. You can't reason just with outrage and headlines.
By the way, most of those points have their Democrat counterpart with a different style, it's mainly linked to the evolution of the governance style in the US. Democrats also had their DEI unsuited hires, censorships (Meta was censoring on the order of the White House), and so on.
> Immigration can totally be a problem, and voters in the western world increasingly ask their leaders to address it.
Stop equivocating. I didn't say that opposing immigration = fascism, I said that identifying marginalized groups, pinning all of the nation's problems on those groups and then persecuting, victimizing, terrorizing anyone who looks like they belong to one of those groups - that is fascist.
> Opposing socialism isn't "fascist"
Again, stop equivocating. I didn't say that opposing socialism is fascist, I said "aggressively anti-socialist", as in, violent anti-socialist rhetoric. Similar to the previous point.
> afaik the Trump admin has done nothing significant about it
That's wholly detached from reality. The only reason he hasn't dismantled all of the social programs yet is because the courts have stepped in and intervened when he tried. See: USAID, withholding SNAP funding, Medicaid, the whole DOGE disaster.
> Again, all of those measures are very superficial and nothing like what real fascism did in Italy or what Nazis did when they came to power. You can't reason just with outrage and headlines.
Those are the core qualities of fascism. I get it, you don't like being called a fascist so you sea-lion about the differences to distract from the overwhelming similarities.
Even when Trump dismantles the judicial branch, people like you will maintain that the US isn't fascist because people aren't speaking Italian like they did in fascist Italy, or German like they did in nazi Germany.
I feel comfortable saying this because we're not just disagreeing on whether the US is fascist right now and there's still room to have argue there, but we're disagreeing on whether Trump has a fascist agenda and whether he's actively working to transform the US into a totalitarian regime following the fascist playbook, which he absolutely is.
I'm not American, I'm not even Trumpist so your ad-hominem falls flat. I however live in a country where the soviet propaganda was crying "fascism" every single day of the year, for 60 years, so when I see people do the same I tend to be skeptical about it.
I still don't understand why "aggressively anti-socialist" policies are fascist. Fascism is itself a branch of socialism (Mussolini was one, in France the fascist leader Jacques Doriot was one as well, for instance). Being a totalitarism, it aims at engulfing every aspect of the daily life, which means supporting socialist policies (similar to communism, another totalitarism).
Authoritarian regimes in the 30´s that were "aggressively anti-socialist" weren't fascist. Franco or Salazar are relevant examples, even thought today they would be categorized as such, since you guys seem now to have only single word left to designate populist or authoritarian regimes then don't like.
Trump lacks deeply indeed the socialist aspect of fascism; it would likely be better defined as plutocratic cesarism, even though he did not make a coup (yet).
> I'm not American, I'm not even Trumpist so your ad-hominem falls flat.
You don't have to be American to be a fascist-sympathizer, which you clearly are, since you label opposition to totalitarian methods as "the far left", lie about matters of fact, and grossly misrepresent the events that happened in fascist Italy while trying to represent yourself as someone intimately familiar with the matter.
For example:
> Fascism is itself a branch of socialism (Mussolini was one)
> Authoritarian regimes in the 30´s that were "aggressively anti-socialist" weren't fascist.
> Trump lacks deeply indeed the socialist aspect of fascism
Fascism is not a branch of socialism, fascism frames socialists as enemies of the state and pledges to destroy socialism. Mussolini was clearly not a socialist ideologically, as he had them killed. That was the entire MO of the blackshirts.
> since you guys seem now to have only single word left to designate populist or authoritarian regimes then don't like.
No, we're just using the word appropriately and you hate it. You'd rather lie and make up a story about fascism being a branch of socialism than admit that Trump is a fascist.
You should read more about this, the creator of the fascist doctrine stated plainly that fascism was socialism with nationalist characteristics.[0]
Socialism and fascism share many similarities, given that they developed in the same context with the same roots : youth movements, focus on controlling education, citizen's health seen as a responsibility of the State, strong management of the economy, and so on. Both tend to classify political ennemies as a single group ("communists" in the case of fascists, "fascists" in the case of socialists), without distinction, just like what you are doing.
The fact that Black Shirts (which don't have a Trumpian equivalent) didn't like the other socialists doesn't make fascism less socialist, just like the soviet campaign against Trotskists doesn't mean that the USSR was less communist.
> we're just using the word appropriately
Rubio just admitted that the US participated in the strikes against Iran to please Israel. There is nothing fascist about this, and again plutocracy is a much more efficient explanation for the current regime actions. Saying that something isn't fascist doesn't make me a fascist.
"If you are not with me, you're against me" type of thinking... where did I see this historically?
> Let's not waste the meaning of words by throwing them at any occasion.
Honest question, but if this is not fascism, then what is? Aren't you also wasting the meaning of a word by refusing to acknowledge any application of that word?
There isn't a single accepted definition of what fascism is. The USSR and their left-wing allies in Western Europe would define everything that wasn't communist as “fascist”. It still continues to this day.
I'd suggest you read about fascist Italy to get a sense of what fascism is. So far I haven't seen Democrats repeatedly kicked out of cars in Times Square after drinking a bottle of castor oil. Trump said that he wouldn't look to be reelected for a third mandate.
The Iran war is mainly a consequence of the Israeli influence on US politics; it has nothing to do with fascism, and it is in continuity with the previous administration.
So yeah, populism likely, a plutocracy (evidenced by the role of AIPAC in elections) but not fascism.
> I'd suggest you read about fascist Italy to get a sense of what fascism is. So far I haven't seen Democrats repeatedly kicked out of cars in Times Square after drinking a bottle of castor oil.
January 6th had all the hallmarks of the black shirts marching on Rome. And ICE is definitely pulling people out of cars and homes in Democratic cities. But I guess everything is fine because they're not making them drink castor oil.
Immigration enforcement is necessary, but these actions clearly have less to do with people's immigration status and more to do with political reprisal.
> Trump said that he wouldn't look to be reelected for a third mandate.
They'll always say they'll follow the Constitution to legitimize themselves, but their actions don't reflect it.
> The Iran war is mainly a consequence of the Israeli influence on US politics; it has nothing to do with fascism, and it is in continuity with the previous administration.
It has everything to do with fascism, not because of its motivation, but it's lack of democratic approval. This administration has a clear disdain for the democratic process.
I sincerely hope there was some secret vote by Congress that we don't know about.
> So yeah, populism likely, a plutocracy (evidenced by the role of AIPAC in elections) but not fascism.
I would've agreed with you if we were talking about Trump's first term, that was clearly just populism. This second term goes far beyond what any populist leader has done in Europe.
Trump has no structured paramilitary militias like the Squadras or the SA. The January 6th was mainly a crowd movement, participants were a heteroclite bunch with very different political ideas.
> ICE
ICE is a state agency, which existed before and has never been known for its benevolent and non-violent actions. The problems mainly arise from the overhiring, lack of training, and braindead managers. By the way, many members agency are not white, which contradicts the racism narrative. Alex Pretti was shot by two latino officers, for instance.
> lack of democratic approval
Lack of democratic approval for a war isn't facism. It's a strong presidential regime. France has the same and is not fascist. And it's legal in the current form[0].
> farther than any populist leader
Politics aren't a 1d political spectrum were the ends are facism. Afaik declaring a war to satisfy the billionaires of another nation is clearly not fascism, nor even nationalist in the strict sense.
Words are important because if you earnestly want the situation to change, you need to assess it clearly. The Trump presidency has a more to do with the influence of money in US politics, and the media system which favors outrage and "loud" candidates. Democrats also commited a historical blunder with the botched Biden candidacy and the lack of a credible replacement (Kamala was clearly not convincing from the early start).
> Trump has no structured paramilitary militias like the Squadras or the SA. The January 6th was mainly a crowd movement, participants were a heteroclite bunch with very different political ideas.
The black shirts were no different.
> ICE is a state agency, which existed before and has never been known for its benevolent and non-violent actions.
Much of the prosecution of minorities in fascist regimes was not done by the militias, it was done by law enforcement.
> Lack of democratic approval for a war isn't facism. It's a strong presidential regime. France has the same and is not fascist. And it's legal in the current form[0].
A hallmark of fascism is the refusal to acknowledge any democratic limitations on the power of the leader. The article you reference states clearly that he has no legal authority to start the war, as he would need congressional approval.
France has the same system as the U.S., only parliament has the power to start a war.[0]
> Words are important because if you earnestly want the situation to change, you need to assess it clearly.
I'm glad we agree on that. I will concede that Trump may never become a true dictator, but the ideology is clearly there and if his power is not checked I worry about who will succeed him.
> The Trump presidency has a more to do with the influence of money in US politics
Fascists regimes have historically been well-funded by money in politics.
You can alternatively read the wikipedia article about squadrism and see that there is nothing in common between the people that did Jan 6th and squadrists, which were a highly organized and violent paramilitary force.
> Much of the prosecution of minorities
There are many latinos in ICE - the Axel Pretti murderers were latino agents. All of this rethoric about ideology hardly matches reality, which is more likely a chain of incompetent people mismanadging the situation.
> illegal war
Article states that "Under the War Powers Resolution, which dates back to the 1970s, if a president enters the military into hostilities without congressional authorization, the operation must end within 60 days unless Congress expressly authorizes it.". Trump is within this framework, similar to the previous strikes on the enrichment plants.
> Succession
As usual with this kind of cesarism, it is tied to an individual and will deflate after Trump's mandate. Since they didn't cancel elections (like a true fascist would do, by the way, as it is not a democratic ideology), it may end up this year when they'll lose the congress.
> money
Fascist regimes had rich donors, but it was for ideological reasons first - Henry Ford's support of the nazi party comes to mind. The current donors such as Miriam Adelson or the tech bros fund him to steer the policy towards their interest, or just pure corruption, as we saw with CZ (Binance). I mean look at it, 13 members of the government are billionaires. This is a classic case of plutocracy - rich people's government. Caesar was also a plutocrat, which fits well with Trump.
There's still time for that, but canceling elections would make it too obvious, then even people like you would realize what is happening. That's why these days autocrats prefer to simply subvert the electoral system. That way people who prefer to look away can simply continue to pretend everything is above board.
Are you claiming Harris or Biden would have bombed Iran like this? That does not sound credible, but if the other party wouldn’t have attached Iran then this is not business as usual, it’s the GOP as usual.
Biden and Harris didn't have any problems shipping tons of bombs to Israel, aimed at being exploded on dense civilian zones so I don't think that there is are dramatic differences between the two parties.
Trump doesn't need congressional approval to launch operations shorter than 60 days, per the War Powers act, a law introduced by Democrats, by the way.
This isn't a simple operation, killing a foreign head of state is about as clear of a declaration of war as you can imagine. The law was introduced to put a check on the president's use of military force, it didn't give the president the power to declare war on another country.
"Harris to Jewish voters: ‘All options on the table’ to stop Iran from going nuclear
In pre-election High Holidays call, US vice president says diplomatic solution still preferable to keep Islamic Republic from the bomb, charges Trump won’t stand by Israel"
An honest discussion about this cannot be had on this site, it's kinda funny how pointless all the comments are here. Yours is the closest anyone is allowed to get and I wonder if yours will stay up.
No I'm talking about who is responsible for all of this. You're allowed to misunderstand (as you did here), you're allowed to downvote (as they do to me), you're allowed to lie, and allowed to be mistaken. But truth is nowhere to be found on Hacker News on this subject. There can be a million comments. All of them varying degrees of wrong or closer to the money and then removed.
It is funny that the AIPAC influence narrative is allowed now, but think tank papers are greyed out and will disappear soon. So I guess "blame Bibi" is one of the desired narratives now.
Ukraine is a democracy with a legitimate leadership that was not planning to acquire nukes and has no history of planning to remove Russia from the map. To suggest that this attack on Iran is the same as the Russian invasion of Ukraine is very misguided.
Ukraine got rid of nukes and it was massive collosal mistake. In alternative universe where they win and get territory back and get economy on track, they would be 100% warranted to get the nukes.
My point is, Ukraine war and the way it evolved shows that not having nukes is a bad position.
No it would not be more dangerous then current. Lets not pretend Russia is mot more currupt then Ukraine used to be. I dont particularly care whether it is Russia selling them, Ukraine or USA.
Ukraine would be better off keeping them and all of us would be safer.
Because as of now, bad actors (Russia, USA, China) have nukes. Ukraine does not and that is making Russia expand. Meanwhile USA is run entirely but bad actors.
> My point is, Ukraine war and the way it evolved shows that not having nukes is a bad position.
Israel (allegedly? idk) has nukes. Did it stop October 7th? Did it stop Iran from firing ballistic missiles?
The war of today is not an open war (the war in Ukraine did not start on February 24 2022, but in 2014) where nuclear deterrence matters. Nuke will never help if the war is waged through proxies.
To be fair, nuking a piece of land that you claim you own and is also just a few miles away and downwind of your own citizens is a fairly difficult thing to do. Nukes are a great deterrent when it's a place at least 100 miles from your borders, and better if even farther. They're useless in your own backyard.
> I've spoken with engineers who worked on nuclear weapons systems, the consensus is that the public is deeply misinformed about how they work, the dangers, and the implications of weapons being used. (...)
> The biggest danger of a nuclear weapon is being hit by flying debris.
> Fusion airburst bombs of the modern era are incredibly clean and radiation is only a risk in a very small area (tens of miles) for a short time (days to weeks). (...)
Your own quotes contradict you. Gaza isn't even 10 miles wide. If nukes are safe from over 10s of miles away, then nuking Gaza would without a doubt endanger Israel since there's no place they could irradiate that would be sufficiently far from them.
Plus if Israel thinks it's fine to use them, then countries that don't like Israel will be glad to get that approval to go ahead with using their own
> Plus if Israel thinks it's fine to use them, then countries that don't like Israel will be glad to get that approval to go ahead with using their own
I am sure Ukrainians who built said nukes wouldn't have much problems figuring it out and building own nuclear program.
Instead believing in bright and peaceful future USA, France and UK promised. As Ukrainian who lived in Ukraine in 90s that felt like being on a frontier of the modern world, giving up the nukes. Oh, how full of hope we were.
By now the nukes would have been useless. You need to have a continuous ballistic and nuclear program to manufacture new nukes and missiles as the old ones become stale.
I think Ukraine would have no problem maintaining it's own nuclear program from purely technical perspective, considering they have a number of nuclear plants and expertise. Plutonium is a byproduct of a nuclear plant, they wouldn't even have to bother with uranium enrichment.
What an awful take devoid of context. Russia literally defaulted in 1998, and 'somehow' kept the nukes.
And today Ukraine is doing quite amazing, considering 12 years of war. I can only dream what it would be if russians didn't steal a generation. Giving up nukes was a giant mistake.
Back then, giving up on nukes never was about compromising security. In 1993, I remember being full of hope and opportunity to live in peaceful world with less nukes. It felt like we had our backs by France, UK and USA.
That was a move full of betrayed optimism, not desperation - giving up third world arsenal because the future is bright.
You also need to maintain vectors, at least functioning ICBMs, which cost quite dearly. And Russia had much more ressources than Ukraine at the time, by the way.
Ukraine didn't declare bankruptcy because Russia chose to assume 100% of the USSR external debt. Meanwhile, in 1998, Russia had a GDP PPP 80% higher than Ukraine.
It was a non-proliferation issue, I believe? The same could have been said about the pressure for Ukrainians to renounce the nukes. I agree that in retrospect Ukraine would have been safer with nuclear weapons.
However, a lot could have happened in two decades, and Ukraine had to go through many issues typical of post-Soviet countries at the time. The risk associated with warheads being sold by generals or oligarchs was seen as a real one, see for instance:
Iran has been "a week away" from acquiring nukes since Netanyahu first claimed it in the 90s.
Not six months ago, Trump launched a strike that "completely obliterated" Iran's ability to obtain nukes. And then, either because he has the memory of a goldfish, or thinks that we do (both are somewhat true), he pulled out "a week away", again, at the SOTU. "We must attack Iran to destroy what I told you we destroyed last year."
Iran may be planning to do so. But this is just a boogeyman being used (again) by Israel and the US.
It's not the same as all, whatever you think of the Ukraine, it used to be part of the Soviet Union. Russia and the Ukraine fighting is a "normal" war. The US has absolutely no business attacking Iran. It's entirely unprovoked and at the behest of the terrorist "nation" of Israel, which also should have nothing to do with the US.
> The US has absolutely no business attacking Iran.
Iran's theocratic regime just murdered tens of thousands of protestors, regularly organizes chants of "Death to America", calls the US "The Great Satan", sponsors terror organizations all around the region, has (through their Houthi proxies) cut off critical sea lanes in one of the most strategic areas, is very close to developing nuclear weapons (with enough HEU already to build maybe a dozen bombs), has extensive ballistic missile magazines and expertise, and is working on ICBMs explicitly to reach the US homeland.
But oh yeah, this is totally unprovoked and the US has no business attacking Iran. Right.
It's amazing to see the justification done by some people to attack other sovereign countries. Did not america learn from the fake WMD fiasco with Iraq?
The IAEA estimates that Iran had 440.9 kg of uranium enriched to up to
60% before last year's Israeli-U.S. attacks - enough, if enriched further,
for 10 nuclear weapons, according to an IAEA yardstick.
The agency and Western powers believe the bulk of that is still intact.
Washington wants Tehran to give it up.
I seem to have missed the IAEA report on Iraq's 400+ kilos of HEU.
Jm2c but I wonder how people can be surprised that Iran wanted to build a nuclear weapon, especially after the US under Trump's first presidency pulled out the nuclear deal struck under Obama and cornered Iran even more.
Like do people in US realize that countries around the world take notes about what happened to the Libyas and Iraqs and many others (like Colombia recently) and see that the US will attack other countries with impunity.
The US feels threatened by Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile programs and has the military force to stop them, probably. Diplomatic avenues bore no fruit. Military force is now being used to--hopefully--end the threat definitively.
Yes, of course we are aware of what happened to Ghaddafi. It's very en vogue to point out the game theoretical incentives to develop nuclear weapons.
But seemingly people never bring up South Africa's disarmament. And nobody ever mentions that game theory also incentivizes the US prevent their adversaries from developing nuclear weapons where possible.
Giving up or stopping development of nukes may invite attack. Refusing to stop developing them may also invite attack.
What I said is factual. We're already seeing pictures of murdered children coming out of Iran, just like we did with Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon... Not a single shred of evidence has been produced to back the claim that Iran murdered anyone, let alone tens of thousands of people.
I'll save everyone the clicks: there's no evidence of Iran claiming they killed over 3000 people in any of these articles. There's a claim they said this, but as with all reporting about Iran, no proof. Also, 3000 is not "tens of thousands".
"The Human Rights Activists News Agency says it confirmed more than 7,000 deaths and that it is investigating thousands more. The government has acknowledged more than 3,000 killed, though it has undercounted or not reported fatalities from past unrest." - https://apnews.com/article/iran-campus-protests-crackdown-54...
'"I would put the minimum estimates to be 5,000 plus," Mai Soto, the United Nations’ special rapporteur on Iran, said in an interview with ABC Australia. Soto noted 5,000 dead is a "conservative" or "the minimum" estimate. Other credible estimates, she said, indicate as many as 20,000.' - https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2026/02/20/how-man...
> as with all reporting about Iran, no proof.
In the same way there's no proof humans ever walked on the moon, I suppose.
It's constant deflection with you people. You can never actually address the facts head on; just deflect with "there's no evidence", pivot to "there's no proof", then cast aspersions on the most disagreeable messenger.
You have previously intimated that you are also in the United States. Should I dismiss your arguments because you're allegedly based in the US, too?
if you slaughter civilians and label all males as combatants you conveniently get a near 50% militant death rate
don't play dumb, there's a reason israel is not letting foreign media into gaza and slaughtering local journalists at a rate never seen in history of war
> if you slaughter civilians and label all males as combatants you conveniently get a near 50% militant death rate
Say the ratio is 1:4, then what?
> don't play dumb, there's a reason israel is not letting foreign media into gaza and slaughtering local journalists at a rate never seen in history of war
And, at the same time, they keep all the internet links alive so that Palestinians can show the whole world the "genocide"? Like, do you really think that Israelis are that dumb? Islamic Republic shut down the internet to hide the scope of butchery, but Israelis did not figure it out?
yes poor israel with it's nukes and iron dome is being oppressed by a bunch of women and children living in an open prison
now please tell me what you'd like to see happen with the remaining palestinians and what you expect to happen in the middle east after you destabilize another major country in the region
Truly oppressed people do not blow up themselves in cafes, busses, and schools. People in Iran are oppressed, their women are beaten for not covering their hair in the street, and yet, they do not blow up themselves.
as a Pole its sad to see so many jews get behind a fascist like Bibi. living in NYC i don't feel safer today and i don't see how the whole world turning on israel is good for jews long term
Trump shredding NATO and taking our random world leaders is also not making countries like Poland safer
You provided a 50:50 stats without any sort of reasoning or an argument. I asked what does it mean, and you completely ignored my question, but mentioned that Gaza is an open prison (which is not, as Palestinians can leave and come back, as many did pre-2023 war), and somehow said that if people are “oppressed”, it is okay for them to commit atrocities.
Now, I would expect that you as a Pole would be able to tell the difference between Warsaw ghetto and Gaza. I wonder why you choose this false equivalence: Jews did not attack Germany from Warsaw Ghetto, they did not launch rockets, kidnapped German civilians and kept them in captivity, jews could not leave.
> as a Pole its sad to see so many jews get behind a fascist like Bibi. living in NYC i don't feel safer today and i don't see how the whole world turning on israel is good for jews long term
And this is the fault of the jews, right? And not the people who make jews not safe?
They're engaged in willful destruction of hospitals, they kill journalists on purpose, they have systematically blocked aid. Their friend minister recently declared an intent to eliminate all Palestinian territory.
> They're engaged in willful destruction of hospitals
If a civilian facility is used for military purposes it is a legitimate target. Ukranians also bomb schools and hospitals. Are Ukranians commit genocide?
If a hospital is never be attacked, what prevents militaries simply use hospitals as military bases? It's like the ultimate "get out of jail" free card.
> they kill journalists on purpose
US also did in Iraq. And? Does it make US's invasion of Iraq a genocide? Ukranians killed Russian journalists too. Does it make the war in Ukraine a genocide?
> they have systematically blocked aid
Egypt did so as well. Moreover, despite its international obligations, Egypt refused to accept Palestinian refugees as if it wanted a lot of civilians to die.
> Their friend minister recently declared an intent to eliminate all Palestinian territory.
Please provide sources. Genocide is not a matter of cherry-picking or of opinion. People who take this debate seriously look into context and evidence with a level of detail that goes beyond what can be covered here. Anyone interested in arguments and counterarguments will inevitable have to refer to authorities in the matter who have the background, time and resources.
Don't bother. He just effectively argued that there are no illegitimate targets in war because soldiers can be anywhere and that hospitals must be targeted or else they are "get out of jail free cards" whatever the fuck that means. War is war, but war crimes are still war crimes. No point trying to have rational discourse with someone advocating for war crimes.
> He just effectively argued that there are no illegitimate targets in war
No, this is not what I've said.
> because soldiers can be anywhere and that hospitals must be targeted or else they are "get out of jail free cards" whatever the fuck that means.
The law is clear in this regard. If you use hospital for military purposes, it is a valid target.
> War is war, but war crimes are still war crimes.
When a hospital is used for military purposes and then attacked, it is not a war crime from the PoV of international law. You may not like it, but it is a fact.
> No point trying to have rational discourse with someone advocating for war crimes.
I think you are irrational here. Your reasoning is based on emotions, and not facts.
> The law is clear in this regard. If you use hospital for military purposes, it is a valid target.
This is wrong. Hospitals can only be valid targets if they are used to launch "acts harmful to the enemy". There are countless military purposes that still don't rise to that level. Sheltering soldiers, even using floors as war rooms for planning is not enough. Any response taken against a hospital must also be proportionate to the harm. Small arms fire from a hospital window does not justify bombing the entire building into rubble.
> The ICRC’s Commentary cites as examples “firing at the enemy for reasons other than individual self-defence, installing a firing position in a medical post, the use of a hospital as a shelter for able-bodied combatants, as an arms or ammunition dump, or as a military observation post.” It also states that “transmitting information of military value” or being used “as a centre for liaison with fighting troops” results in loss of protection.
> Sheltering soldiers, even using floors as war rooms for planning is not enough.
It is enough for the hospital to loose its protection.
> Any response taken against a hospital must also be proportionate to the harm.
This is completely different question though: proportionality of response vs. protected status of various institutions and buildings at war.
> The ICRC’s Commentary cites as examples “firing at the enemy for reasons other than individual self-defence, installing a firing position in a medical post, the use of a hospital as a shelter for able-bodied combatants, as an arms or ammunition dump, or as a military observation post.” It also states that “transmitting information of military value” or being used “as a centre for liaison with fighting troops” results in loss of protection.
So, given that Palestinians used schools consistently to hide weapons, are you saying that it never happens? It seems to me completely unreasonable to claim that Israelis destroyed "all the schools, hospitals, universities because they want genocide" very questionable given that Palestinians used civilian infrastructure and NGOs for its resistance in the past. If they did it, why won't they do it again?
> Genocide is not a matter of cherry-picking or of opinion.
Of course not. It is also not a a single %.
> People who take this debate seriously look into context and evidence with a level of detail that goes beyond what can be covered here. Anyone interested in arguments and counterarguments will inevitable have to refer to authorities in the matter who have the background, time and resources.
Absolutely. However, people here are using the term genocide as it is a settled matter. Moreover, their whole reasoning boils down to metrics that either show that any war is a genocide, or have no bearing at all.
Russian invasion of Ukraine is absolutely a genocidal war, with genocidal claims spoken out loud and actions documented, tens of thousands of times.
Never heard someone in USA claiming that Iraqis or Iranians had no right to exist, saying that they are not a real country and/or nation. This rhetoric is pretty much main stream in russia and used to justify ongoing genocide.
> And at the double standards applied to Russians and Israelis in their wars of aggression.
I would argue that funding Axis of Resistance from Hezbollah to Houthis is aggression too. Let’s not pretend that IR minded their own business, and suddenly was under attack.
There was literally a puppet regime in the 70s backed and promoted by the US.
And since then Iran has always been in US and Israeli crossfire.
You also need to try to understand their point of view.
There's no doubt Iran has promoted armed resistance and terrorism, don't get me wrong, but ask yourself how much of this is about their own safety and defence. It's not 0%, far from it.
> There was literally a puppet regime in the 70s backed and promoted by the US.
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.
Meanwhile "from the river to the sea" was actual Likud's election slogan before Hamas co-opted it. There are absolutely elements in Israel - and to be clear, in its government, with the ability to and motivation to make it happen, not just extremists posting on their forums - what are quite happy with the idea of razing both Gaza and the West Bank to the ground for settling. And their idea of what to do with the people displaced by this ranges from collateral damage to a shrug of the shoulders and making them someone else's problem.
The clock was programmed to count down from 8,411 days, corresponding to a 2015
statement by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who predicted that "Israel
won't exist in 25 years". He claimed in his statement that there will be nothing
left of the Jewish state by 2040. The statement was made in the aftermath of a
September 2015 nuclear deal that had a timeline of 25 years to complete. He
predicted that it would not take that long for Israel to cease existing.
Protesters annually chant "Death to Israel". The installation was part of a much
broader demonstration involving over a million participants, where anti-Israel
slogans and imagery were prominently featured.
> That's a well debunked lie told by zionists for decades. Nobody cares anymore. Besides it's "israel" wiping palestine off the map.
How can you debunk something that the officials of Islamic Republic, Hezbollah, and various Palestinian fractions were saying out in the open for years? Ddi you just make it disappear?
> And at the double standards applied to Russians and Israelis in their wars of aggression
To be fair, this is the new standard. Russia has promulgated it through its actions in Georgia and Ukraine. China with Tibet and Taiwan. America with Iraq, Venezuela and Iran. The old rules-based international order is dead, and with it Pax Americana.
The wishes of a small group of people aren't the default for the majority. This is why the small group of people say that strong leaders for life, with no checks, are normal and natural.
> wishes of a small group of people aren't the default for the majority
In a geopolitical context, the words and actions of the powerful are what count. And those words and actions currently point–uniformly–towards sovereign borders not being a red line.
I'm certain that Persians will remain in Iran, Arabs in Palestine, and Jews in Germany for any reasonable number of lifetimes we could count. The wishes of a few fascists don't outlast their death.
> that was a couple of decades, it's not like that's an ancient status quo
Sure. The century-long peace following the Napoleonic Wars was also some decades.
Our default state, unfortunately, is war. But we sought to change that after the horrors of WWII (and the nuclear bomb), and it's worth nothing where those noble goals succeeded. It's sad that project is over. But something being sad doesn't mean it isn't true.
India, Russia, Philippines, Vietnam (south China sea island taking), Russia (their last border skirmish was in the 90s), itself (PLA soldiers were used and killed people in TS 1989).
The idea that China hasn't 'attacked anyone' in 40 years is factually incorrect. In 1988, they engaged in a deadly naval skirmish with Vietnam over the Johnson South Reef. More recently, the PLA engaged in fatal border clashes with India in the Galwan Valley (2020). On top of direct skirmishes, they have engaged in constant gray-zone aggression: violently ramming Philippine and Vietnamese vessels in the South China Sea, firing water cannons at supply ships, and surrounding Taiwan with live-fire military blockades. That doesn't even touch on the internal human rights abuses against the Uyghurs in Xinjiang. Multiple international bodies and governments have recognized what they are doing to Uyghurs since 2014 as genocide. Finally, it's hard to ignore their devastating handling of COVID-19. The active suppression of information, punishment of early whistleblowers, and refusal to cooperate with international investigations resulted in unprecedented worldwide damage, amounting to an act of gross global endangerment.
I said "attacked/invaded", not "had some fistfights at the border". Could we set the standard at "at least one piece of military equipment fired on people"?
Bear in mind that we're comparing this to the USA and Israel's military record over the last 40 years.
> I said "attacked/invaded", not "had some fistfights at the border"
Disputed border region. Used military force to intervene. That's an attack.
> Could we set the standard at "at least one piece of military equipment fired on people"?
Why not tens of soldiers killed? (And on what planet do "the 4th (Highland) Motorised Infantry and 6th (Highland) Mechanised Infantry Divisions" of the PLA not contain military equipment?)
> we're comparing this to the USA and Israel's military record over the last 40 years
No, you are. The list I stated was China, Russia and America. You're trying to argue that China upholds the rules-based international order around respecting sovereign borders. That would be news in Taipei.
> I'm arguing that China has, generously, a 3-4 figure body count in the last 40 years
If we ignore proxy wars, sure.
And you're still arguing a straw man. Nobody in this thread ever said that China was as warlike as Russia and America (and Israel and Iran). Just that it has embraced the same geopolitical philosphy and standard.
The examples I gave were Tibet and Taiwan. I was asked to give "one country China has attacked/invaded in the last 40 years," a timeline chosen to exlude the Sino-Vietnamese war [1] and encompass the wake of the Soviet Union's collapse. I did, prioritizing directness, recency and death toll.
I'm not saying China is as militarily forward as Russia or America (or Israel or Iran). I'm saying that the double standard isn't a double standard, it's one Xi explicilty embraces with his rhetoric around Taiwan.
No one here is saying this is China fault, they’re saying the current situation is on par for how the USA, China and Russia treat the world.
In this thread the only reason people have brought up Chinese issues are because the strong defensiveness of others like China is some saint. They’re not.
Also I think two more examples were missed, how Ukraine wouldn’t have been invaded without china’s tolerance of their ally doing it, and Hong Kong repression. Also how Iran and Ukraine make it much more likely they finally go for Taiwan like they’ve been posturing to do.
To deny China isn’t like Russia and the US in this regards is like thinking Trump was going to be the peace president as he claimed
> only major country/culture that has never been aggressive towards it's neighbors is India
I have Indian heritage, and I heard this take growing up, and I'll concede that India is on the peaceful side of the international median. That said, the folks in Sri Lanka [1][2] and Bangladesh [3] would aggressively disagree. (Book recommendation: The Seven Moons of Maali Almeida [4]. Also, anything by Assamese authors.)
And this thesis really only applies to modern India. Pre-EIC India was a subcontinent of warring states. And even for the "modern India" designation, we have to ignore the violence of political integration [5][6].
India saved Bangladesh from genocide at the hands of Pakistan. Those ungrateful bastards still stand with Pakistan on everything against India. I don't know why you would bring that up. India could have easily took over Bangladesh after Pakistani forces surrendered, but they chose to let them be independent.
Sri Lanka is more complicated, but India was never directly involved in the conflict. Except for the peace keeping forces it sent, and those too targeted the Indian Tamils, which was the reason they assassinated Rajeev Gandhi.
Well yes, we turned them into a suzerainty. The Iranians didn't like it when America did it through the Shah. The Bangladeshis don't like it when Indians think they should be a supplicant sovereign. (Sheikh Hassina was to New Delhi what the Shah was to D.C.)
Like, America rescued Japan from a ruinous autocracy. It would still be mean and violent to demand their gratitude for us nuking them.
> India could have easily took over Bangladesh
And it would have had another Kashmir. In practice, buffer state was the only correct play. (Arguably, it's what China should have done with Tibet.)
> India was never directly involved in the conflict. Except for the peace keeping forces
Yeah. The entire American occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan was done with "peacekeeping" forces. The peacekeepers in both cases committed documented atrocities.
> The peacekeepers in both cases committed documented atrocities.
The huge part you are missing is, India did the atrocities against it's own people. LTTE were Tamils of Indian origin. My original comment said India has never been an aggressor to it's neighbors.
> India did the atrocities against it's own people
Everyone always says this. Taiwanese are ethnically Chinese. Ukrainians aren't real. And India wasn't subjugated by the British, it was part of the British Empire and thus a domestic concern.
> LTTE were Tamils of Indian origin. My original comment said India has never been an aggressor to it's neighbors
If you redefine neighbors to being inside India, and then excuse atrocities inside India, sure. By that definition, nobody has ever been an aggresor to its neighbors.
I dunno, I've been reading for hours, I might play some games.
So the Mughals defeated and assimilated the Sultanate of Delhi ruled by the Afghan Lodi dynasty. Then they defeated and assimilated the Rajput Kingdom of Mewar ... who were Hindu ... ah, I've got it, you must mean Hindus. So excluding Shah Jahan and the Taj Mahal from being Indian I guess. I'll figure this out eventually.
Right then: Rana Sanga (the Rajput Maharana of Mewar) invaded and captured lots of territory belonging to the Malwa Sultanate, the Gujurat Sultanate, and the Lodi dynasty (again). So there you go. You can't say that those places were India at the time, and you can't say he was from the wrong culture, checkmate.
Rana sangha took back his territory. And the other conflicts you mention were against fellow "Indians". I put it in quotes, because as you mention there was no India back then. But there was a shared culture and off course religion. I never said Indians were never violent. My original comment was that India (as a whole) has never been the aggressor against it's neighbors. And you still haven't disproved that. I don't know what you are checkmating.
But we agree there was no India to ascribe this non-invasive nature to, before unification. With the result that India-as-a-whole is the product of aggression against neighbors, where all those neighbors became India, but only quite recently, meaning that there hasn't been much time for India as a whole to be aggressive against further neighbors.
It's like saying that the English never invaded anywhere before 927. Of course they didn't, because the first English king was crowned in 927, and before that the English were the West Saxons, South Saxons, East Angles, Middle Angles, South Angles, Men of Kent, two flavors of Northumbrians and a few stray Welsh, and they were all busy invading one another.
China doesn't belong on this list. Nehru's government was aggressively pro China. China returned the favour by invading Tibet and then attacking India [1].
If Mao hadn't done that, we'd probably be living in a Sino-Indian world order today. (India and China have surprisingly few fundamental geopolitical overlaps, the Himalayas neatly partitioning their spheres.)
China's invasion and annexation of Tibet (versus making it a bufffer state) set the geopolitical board. There was a world in which China and India could have peacefully co-existed, and the historical record shows India trying for that before China attacked.
India never attacked Pakistan. Every war was started by Pakistan. India took over vast swathes of Pakistan in 1971 but unilaterally returned all the land. Kashmir is integral part of India. India didn't attack china, China attacked it.
Returning the land doesn't make 1971 ok. There are no excuses for sri lanka and sikkim. The 2019 strikes on Pakistan seem unwarranted from the outside. I'll conceed China's claims India was the aggressor are very questionable.
From Wikipedia on 1971 war: "The war began with Pakistan's Operation Chengiz Khan, consisting of preemptive aerial strikes on eight Indian air stations." India has never started a war. Period. In 2019 again Pakistan attacked first through it's terrorist proxies. In Sri Lanka Indian forces only killed LTTE who were Tamils of Indian origin. Nothing ever happened in sikkim.
The conflicts with Pakistan always do start with Pakistan, but the response is always disproportionate, and seeds future similar conflicts. Its not starting a war. The Sri lanka conflict is not so simple. If you invade a country that doesn't consent to you being there, but only kill a non-governmental group while there, and then leave, I think that is essentially a war. Likewise when you set up fake referendums to annex Sikkim that is just conquest by other means. India has not behaved as badly as many other powers, but that foes not mean we shouldn't point out where it missteps.
Cannot reply to the comment below, so I'll comment here.
I see you had shifted the goal posts from being aggressor to "disproportionate response". My original comment said India has never been the aggressor and thanks for finally agreeing to that. I will not comment on the response being disproportionate or not, because that is just an attempt to derail the original conversation.
Yeah after reading more on each of the Pakistani conflicts it does seem that the immediate cause in each case was Pakistan. You made me change my mind on that one. I'm sure the whole thing is far more complicated than anyone who didn't live through the split could understand, but it does seem India is not the aggressor in any of those cases. Sri lanka seems like India's equivalent to Afghanistan or at worst Gaza, so relatively speaking it isn't on par with Ukraine for instance. Sikkim I don't fully understand, but it seems analogous to conquest.
You may be thinking of Hong Kong, which the British invaded and annexed from the Qing dynasty [2] and then handed back to China in 1997 [3] under conditions that Beijing defaulted on in 2019 [4].
The way I understood this treaty was that the global powers in 1906 (Russia and Great Britain) accepted Tibet as part of China without the need for a war.
In the context of your comment, you say the US and Russia attack sovereign countries and you mention Tibet and Taiwan in the same sentence. Sorry but Taiwan has not been invaded by China, and Tibet was at the time internationally agreed as being part of China (not that I agree with that). Not the same ballpark sorry.
No. Threatening to invade a sovereign country, and then staging materiel to do it, is not "nothing." At the every least, it's something the U.S. (and China and Russia) once criticised others for doing. And it's something we've each done.
I know I left that Nobel Peace Prize somewhere … but I can't find it because there's so much America First lying around. I know, I'll ask the aliens and the US men's hockey team if they've seen it.
Being attacked should rule out 'war of aggression', but I guess the phrase seems to have lost any meaning in modern discourse. Apparently you can spend all the time calling 'death to X' and then get shocked when others take you seriously.
There were tens of thousands of Iranian rockets fired at Israel just since Oct 7. Hezbollah did the majority of the launches, but there's no doubt about who sent the rockets or for what purpose. What would be a proportional response to that?
> You seem to have forgotten that the US attacked Iran first, which made this regime even possible in the first place.
Bombing of US marine barracks in Beirut in 1983 was funded, and organized by Iran. Just take half day off, and read a bit on the role of Islamic Republic in Middle East in the past 40 years. I guarantee your stance of "US attacked first" will change to the "unclear" at the least.
Yeah and the 1953 coup to overthrow the Iranian prime minister and install a US puppet (the Shah) was organized by the CIA. We could also add that in the 1980's the US was actively supporting Iraq in its war against Iran.
This kind of thinking won't get you very far and won't ensure peace in the region.
The Lebanese Muslims at the time were furious that the Sixth Fleet was constantly shelling Shouf. At the time the Phalangists, with Israeli help, had recently murdered 3500 women and children at the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps.
There were and are plenty of grievances to go around in Lebanon.
40 years is an interesting cutoff of where to start history. Did Iran show any aggression to the USA before the Coup d'etat organized by the CIA and MI6?
You do know that the people and groups that started the revolution in 1979 were basically all imprisoned and murdered by the islamists that rule Iran now?
I did not say that Iran started its war in the shadows with US in 1983, I just showed that the scope of the conflict is not limited to the past two years.
You're moving the goalpost now. This started with US imperialism in 1953. Iran wouldn't do what the US wanted, so they installed a puppet, like they always do all over the world.
Can you provide some support for your moral position? You’ve also put “insane horror” in scare quotes, which honestly I find troubling.
Does your moral account provide some justificatory, non-antisemitic framework based on colonialism or oppression that allows us to sidestep the issues with Gazans’ support of Jihad, other extremist doctrines, and the extermination of Jews?
It’s kind of a rhetorical question, but it’s the least I would expect for someone to argue credibly about the morality of the conflict.
This isn't the least bit confusing man. The author confirms the purpose of the quotes, which is effortlessly understandable by native and non-native speakers alike. They were used to quote and comment on a direct phrase from the parent comment.
You absolutely do not need to double down on whatever it is you are doing here lol. Say you were wrong and move on.
>Can you provide some support for your moral position?
Yes, of course. A bunch of people from Europe decided to move to Palestine and start a religious ethnostate there. In doing so they expelled and murdered lots of local residents.
The surviving locals are understandably less than happy about this, and have continued to fight to defend their lands to this day.
Since then, the those people have caused far more harm to non-jewish Palestinians than non-jewish Palestinians have caused to the those people.
>allows us to sidestep the issues with Gazans’ support of Jihad, other extremist doctrines, and the extermination of Jews?
It's perfectly natural that Gazans would support the extermination of jews. In the extreme environment that Israeli jews force Palestinians to live in, it's fundamentally ridiculous to even describe it as an extremist position.
In a comfortable European context it's certainly extreme, but that's a fundamentally dishonest way of portraying it.
"It's perfectly natural that Gazans would support the extermination of Jews."
That's not a point about colonialism or occupation; that's a justification
for ethnic extermination based on the conditions of the people holding the
position. By that logic there is no floor: any atrocity becomes "perfectly
natural" if the grievance is large enough.
In your broader argument you're describing a blood debt with no statute of limitations and no mechanism for resolution. Skåne (where I live) was Danish. Alsace was German. Most of Europe was Roman. At some point borders exist, people live within them, and the only available direction is forward. You haven't described a political framework- you've described a permanent state of war with no exit condition except one side's disappearance.
You just said it's perfectly natural to want to exterminate an ethnic group. Read that back.
>By that logic there is no floor: any atrocity becomes "perfectly natural" if the grievance is large enough.
This is mostly true, yeah. Do you not believe that humans act like that?
>In your broader argument you're describing a blood debt with no statute of limitations and no mechanism for resolution
Nonsense.
>Skåne (where I live) was Danish. Alsace was German. Most of Europe was Roman. At some point borders exist, people live within them, and the only available direction is forward.
Except Israel does not want Palestine to move forward.
There are approximately zero living people that give a shit about the things you mentioned, there are millions of living Palestinians who do care and suffer at the hands of Israeli state every single day.
How did you intend for this comparison to be even vaguely relevant?
>you've described a permanent state of war with no exit condition except one side's disappearance.
This is deliberately obtuse, Israel has had a plenty of ways to largely exit this conflict. At the very least they could've given all Palestinians Israeli citizenship and equal rights decades ago.
Of course, that's not really compatible with the ideals of the jewish ethnostate. I'm sure the Palestinians wouldn't seriously object though.
>You just said it's perfectly natural to want to exterminate an ethnic group. Read that back.
I'll repeat it if you want me to. We've seen it over and over again in history, it's hardly a new thing.
Considering how the jewish people choose to treat the Palestinians, it is not surprising that Palestinians want to exterminate the jewish people. It is a perfectly predictable reaction, and not some special quirk of the Palestinians.
Israel has been at the table at Oslo, Camp David, Taba and Annapolis.
Palestinian leadership walked away from each without a counter-proposal.
That's not a secret.
Since I already wrote a reply to your now-deleted comment:
>You've just made my point. The reason Skåne isn't contested is that there are no living people suffering under Danish occupation of it. You've described the mechanism yourself: time plus resolution. That's exactly what a two-state settlement would produce. You've argued for the process without noticing.
Israel has explicitly rejected that over and over again, and continues to do so every day through ongoing annexations.
There will never be moral high ground for the state of Israel as long as it allows the settlements to exist and doesn't at the very least honor it's internationally recognized borders.
>On citizenship: Israel granting full citizenship to all Palestinians would mean the end of a Jewish majority state within a generation, by demographics alone. You know that. Proposing it as a "simple solution Israel refused" is not a good faith argument; it's describing the dissolution of Israel but painting it as moderation.
A jewish ethnostate is as morally unacceptable as an aryan ethnostate.
>On extermination: you've moved from "perfectly natural" to "perfectly predictable." Those aren't the same thing. Predictable means understandable given the circumstances. Natural means it requires no further justification. You've retreated and you haven't noticed.
No, it's both. It's predictable because it's a natural reaction.
Deleted it, yeah, I've decided it wasn't worth it. Still isn't, mostly.
This will be my last comment to you, I don't want to engage with someone so comfortable at defending genocide.
One final fact check for you: a state with 20% Arab citizens who vote, sit in the Knesset and
serve on the Supreme Court is not comparable to a state founded on racial
extermination. That comparison doesn't survive contact with the facts.
The settlements are illegal and indefensible. I said so already in this thread.
>One final fact check for you: a state with 20% Arab citizens who vote, sit in the Knesset and serve on the Supreme Court is not comparable to a state founded on racial extermination. That comparison doesn't survive contact with the facts.
It is an indisputable historical fact that jewish zionists expelled vast amounts of Palestinians from their homes and forced them out of the territory of what is now modern Israel.
>This will be my last comment to you, I don't want to engage with someone so comfortable at defending genocide.
I'm not defending genocide, that's a ridiculous interpretation of my words. I'm just pointing out the fact that if you keep poking someone long or hard enough, you shouldn't be surprised when they eventually want to get rid of you.
I certainly don't think the extermination of Israeli jews would in any way be a positive outcome.
No one disagrees that the Gazans feel the way they do. But your position is a stronger one. You seem to be excusing or justifying the moral behavior of Gazans in a way that looks self-undermining.
It’s not morally credible to focus on the Jews’ actions alone, given the broader context of the conflict, Islamic conquest and domination. I don’t want to be patronizing and give history lessons, but antisemitism, Jihadism, and other Islamicist extremist doctrines predate the state of Israel by centuries.
So, are you saying that it's not justified for Gazans to feel the way they do? Why not?
> It’s not morally credible to focus on the Jews’ actions alone, given the broader context of the conflict, Islamic conquest and domination. I don’t want to be patronizing and give history lessons, but antisemitism, Jihadism, and other Islamicist extremist doctrines predate the state of Israel by centuries.
That's just whataboutism and has approximately nothing to do with the conflict started by the creation of the modern state of Israel.
The only people who you could reasonably blame besides the zionist jews are the other Europeans.
"small blip" isn't a political take, it's just wrong.
October 7th was the deadliest per capita terrorist attack since the Global Terrorism
Database started recording in 1970 [1]. Globally, it's third on the all-time list (behind only 9/11 and one IS attack [1]. The confirmed death toll from Israeli social
security data (not government press releases) is 1,139, which still makes it 31
times deadlier than the next worst attack in Israeli history [2][3].
You invoked scale. Those are the numbers. They don't say what you wanted them to say.
And for the record: one atrocity not excusing another cuts both ways. Nobody here
argued otherwise. What was actually said (by the person you're replying to) is that
you cannot use scale as your framework whilst hand-waving away the single largest
data point in the argument.
If you mean the Nakba, Sabra and Shatila, or the current death toll in Gaza — those
are serious. But "decades of far worse crimes" doing the work of making October 7th a "small blip"
doesn't follow. You can have a long ledger of serious grievances and still recognise
that one morning where 1,139 people were massacred (including at a music festival, in
kibbutz bedrooms, in bomb shelters) was not a blip. It was the deadliest single terrorist attack per capita since records began.
There is no moral argument for October 7th, and the reaction is disproportionate and unjustifiable - but inevitable. We should all be so unlucky to have neighbours like those, and nobody knows how we would all act if we did.
Nobody cherry-picked anything. Per capita, single-event, it's the number that answers
the claim that was actually made — that October 7th was a "blip."
What you're doing now is a different argument entirely: aggregate conflict deaths over
77 years vs. one morning. That's not context, it's a category error dressed up as one.
For what it's worth, the full Palestinian death toll since 1948 is ~136,000 [1] — a
Palestinian source, so spare me the bias complaint. That's across eight decades, multiple Arab-Israeli wars, three intifadas, and several state actors. October 7th still isn't a blip. It's a massacre inside a war.
"I've not made an argument" is a fascinating claim immediately after quoting someone
who used aggregate scale to call October 7th a "blip"- and agreeing with them.
Providing context in support of a conclusion is making an argument. That's what
arguments are.
The goalposts that moved: "blip" (single event framing) -> "scale of the conflict"
(aggregate framing) -> "I wasn't arguing anything." Three posts, three different
claims, now apparently none of them count.
Rockets regularly target Israel. If that happened to USA the war would start with the first one no matter if it was intercepted or not. Same with any other self-respecting country. Israel is fully justified trying to eliminate threats to itself. It's not only about October 7th.
Because the Global Terrorism Database records non-state terrorist attacks.
State military action is categorised separately: that's not an omission,
it's a definition, but you know that- you're playing stupid. The same database doesn't record US drone strikes or Russian artillery either, weird, right? Must be suppression!!!
If you want Israeli state violence, OCHA tracks it. That data has been
cited in this thread already.
I know that, but why are you referring to this database then? It's just not really relevant in this particular context.
You're saying that the numbers don't say what I want them to say, but then you choose a rather weird set of numbers to demonstrate this with. It's weird!
The reaction is worse in what sense, exactly? Raw numbers? Then you're back to the
same argument as above, where October 7th (again, the third deadliest terrorist attack
since records began in 1970) somehow doesn't count.
Nobody serious disputes that Gazan civilians are suffering enormously. The argument
isn't about that. It's about whether Hamas represents them, and the answer is: less
and less, given that Hamas hasn't held an election since 2006, has siphoned aid money
into tunnels and rockets for two decades [1], and on October 7th sent men with garden
tools to decapitate Thai agricultural workers [2] and film themselves doing it.
You can condemn Israel's conduct (and there's plenty to condemn) without pretending
the people who started this particular escalation were freedom fighters having a bad
day.
I think wholesale genocide of an entire population by the Israeli state is worse. The plan is obviously drive the Palestinians onto the sea (metaphorically) and make the place uninhabitable.
Israel (and I want to be clear, I am referring to Israel the state) has blood on their hands. This went way beyond a "self defense" thing - flattening the entire country, indiscriminate killing of civilians and children, murdering paramedics and bombing ambulances, destroying schools hospitals apartment buildings etc. By a modern democratic state with the most accurate smart weapons available. It's simply unbelievable to me that they are getting away with it.
Most of what you say I don't disagree with. Israel's conduct since October 8th (the civilian
death toll, the aid blockade, the flattening of hospitals) is legitimate to call out. The ICJ found the genocide claim plausible enough to issue
binding provisional measures, which Israel then ignored [1]. That's not nothing.
But "wholesale genocide" and "the plan is obviously to drive them into the sea" are stronger claims than the evidence supports right now, and that matters a lot because the moment you overreach, everyone who wants to dismiss Palestinian suffering has a rhetorical exit. The ICJ's own careful language exists for a reason.
None of that touches the original argument anyway: that October 7th was not a "small blip." Israel's conduct after October 8th doesn't retroactively change what happened on October 7th. Both things are true simultaneously. That's the whole point I'm making.
No, I think I have to respectfully disagree: in the continuum of the Palestine-Israel conflict, this was a small blip. Israel has been killing civilians indiscriminately for years/decades, annexing territory, bulldozing homes etc.
What was different this time was that it was Israel who was the victim, not the Palestinians. And the only way that Israel knows how to respond to these kinds of things is to kill and to destroy.
"What was different this time was that it was Israel who was the victim."
You've just described the deadliest day for Jews since the Holocaust [1] as a blip
because, in your accounting, it was Israel's turn to absorb one.
The "continuum" framing doesn't hold up numerically either. In non-war years, OCHA
records roughly 100–200 Palestinian deaths annually at Israeli hands [2]. Hamas killed
1,139 people before lunchtime. That's not a blip in a continuum, it's five to ten
years of equivalent deaths in eight hours.
The youngest victim was 14 hours old [3]. The oldest was a 92-year-old Holocaust
survivor [3]. None of those facts change based on who you think had it coming.
Everything is a holocaust or genocide to pro-Islamist lefties. Y'all've so discredited those terms that if at some point Israel actually does start a genocide, people will just shrug.
"There's a genocide going on in Gaza? Yeah I know, you've been whining about it for years now."
Come off it, that's a technicality and everyone knows the meaning.
An uncharitable person would easily debunk this by making claims about the idea that 'because of israel they can't have a state to be civilian of' and then the topic gets super muddy because that's technically not true and we go around and around and around.
The Israeli government has been dehumanising the Gazan population in rhetoric for decades. Claiming that no one would deny their suffering is straight up false. It's not a technicality, it's a deliberate technique.
It's one of the things that could be stopped to prevent us going "around and around and around."
How can you claim this with a straight face, when Israel has slaughtered Palestinians like cattle every chance they have. And when they're not killing them with direct violence, they are robbing them of basic necessities and human dignity.
And how can you claim October 7th wasn't an act if war? The main thrust of the attacks were targeting military installations. Much more than Israeli actions in Gaza before or since, which have clearly been done in service of genocide since Israel was created.
The Palestinian genocide has not been a regular war, it has been an absolute extermination campaign that is still ongoing.
"The main thrust targeted military installations"— of 1,139 confirmed dead, 828 were
civilians. That's 72%. They also massacred 364 people at a music festival, which
Hamas later described as a "coincidence" because they "may have thought" ravers were
soldiers "resting". That's the defence you're endorsing.
Nobody serious disputes that Gaza's suffering is real or that Israel's conduct warrants
scrutiny. But "genocide since Israel was created" is doing a lot of work for you; the
ICJ found Palestinian rights were "plausibly" at risk, not that 1948 was a genocide.
Words mean things. Overreaching doesn't help the people you're claiming to defend, it
just makes it easier for the other side to dismiss everything else you say.
So the best you can say about Israel’s conduct over the course of the past 2.5 years is that it “warrants scrutiny”?
And if you want to play the number of victims game, even pre Oct 7 one side has always had it significantly worse than the other. After all, one side is a sovereign state that has a technologically advanced military, an air force, a navy, and air defense systems.
Remarkable. You've managed to read a comment that cited the ICJ, called out Israel's
non-compliance with binding provisional measures, and explicitly said there's "plenty
to condemn"; and concluded the position is that Israeli conduct merely "warrants
scrutiny."
This isn't a conversation, it's not even engagement: that's just not reading.
On asymmetry: you've accidentally made the case for holding Israel to a higher
standard. A nuclear-capable state with F-35s, Iron Dome and a $3.8bn annual US
military subsidy [1] bears more responsibility for its choices than a militia in a
blockaded strip of land; not less. That's what asymmetry actually means.
What it doesn't mean is that a music festival full of civilians somehow doesn't count.
But nice try.
> On asymmetry: you've accidentally made the case for holding Israel to a higher standard.
Huh? Are you replying to someone else?
Israel has killed 10s of thousands of civilians, a large portion of which are children. This along with many other factors - in addition to the higher standard expected from a sovereign state fighting an occupied people - is the reason we call it a genocide.
No, I think you're accusing me of a position I don't really have because I don't like Hamas or Israel, but you think my condemnation of Hamas is support of Israel or that by pointing out Israeli suffering I am turning a blind eye to Palestinian suffering.
It's almost as if we genuinely believe that because there are more deaths on one side, that the other is deserving and should not be condemned despite innocence.
A reminder: Israel counts Hamas soldiers as military targets, even when they are out of uniform and in civilian life.
If we apply the civilized world's standards of war then yes, Israelis who are also off-duty soldiers or reservists don't count as military targets.
If we apply Israel's standards, however, they are.
Are Gazans not allowed to apply the same standards to their adversaries that their adversaries openly apply to them? Would you be this courteous, in their position?
Of the 378 people killed at and around Nova, 16 were off-duty soldiers attending the
rave and 4 were killed fighting [1]. That's 20 out of 378 ... so about 5%.
So even by the standard you're proposing, Hamas massacred around 358 people who
wouldn't qualify as military targets under anyone's rules of engagement. Including
theirs, apparently, since Hamas's own explanation was that they "may have thought"
the ravers were soldiers "resting"; i.e. they didn't know and killed them anyway.
The argument you've constructed requires Hamas to have been applying a targeting
framework. The evidence is that they found a large crowd of Israelis and opened fire.
Ah, so they'd only previously been members of the IDF?
Do you suppose Israel doesn't consider previous members of Hamas legitimate targets?
>The argument you've constructed requires Hamas to have been applying a targeting framework. The evidence is that they found a large crowd of Israelis and opened fire.
But that's effectively indistinguishable from the Israeli targeting framework where everyone connected to Hamas is a legitimate target.
This is settled in international humanitarian law. Per Human Rights Watch,
citing ICRC guidance: "reservists of national armed forces are considered
civilians except when they go on duty." [1] Off-duty at a music festival
unambiguously qualifies as not on duty.
The argument that prior military service permanently strips civilian status
has no basis in IHL. If it did, every Israeli who'd ever served (which is
nearly all of them, given conscription) would be a legitimate target forever.
So: not a targeting framework, more like a justification for killing the entire population.
On your second point: Israel's targeting decisions are also subject to IHL, and where they kill civilians unlawfully that's also a war crime. That's
not a defence of Hamas... it's the same standard applied consistently.
"They do it too" doesn't make either lawful.
For what it's worth, joining Hamas is a choice; IDF service is compulsory. The cases aren't analogous.
> This is settled in international humanitarian law
Neither participant in the Israel-Hamas conflict subscribes to that.
And I'm not really sure how you could expect the small resistance group to follow international humanitarian law when the big state they're fighting doesn't either? That seems absurd.
A wonderful quote that demonstrates how Israel applies different standards to itself: even its active duty combatants are painted as helpless innocents!
Israel has to apply that standard because Hamas operates without uniforms unlike IDF. So yeah, Gazans shouldn't apply the same standard because unlike them Israeli military operates in uniforms so it's easy to distinguish between them and civilians. That Gazans do the opposite is on them.
Sure, if that happens then it needs to be investigated as a potential war crime.
It still doesn't change the fact that Israel is in no position to apply that standard because fighting Gazans don't use uniforms. Obviously they will not treat people shooting at them and launching rockets at them as civilians.
For onlookers: the final paragraph is in Swedish. It calls me a far-right
nationalist and racist. Draw your own conclusions about how that fits the
pattern of this exchange.
On substance: 72% of October 7th victims were civilians by Israel's own
social security data [1]. tovej's argument that this was primarily a military
operation depends on not counting them.
The Hannibal directive is a separate and legitimate concern. It has nothing
to do with whether Hamas targeted civilians — it addresses what Israel did
in response.
I'm going to call a racist a racist when I see it. I've had enough interactions with you on this site (and have given you many second chances to show good faith) to see a blatant pattern.
You're playing devils advocate any time a white supremacist, Israel, or racist bigot is under scrutiny.
And every time you deploy bad faith debate tactics. E.g. here you're strawmanning my argument to say I ignore the percentage of civilians dead. That's not true at all. My argument does not depend on not counting civilian victims. October 7th was a military operation, a guerilla warfare operation.
Most of the Supernova ravers Hamas killed on October 7th who died that day did not die at the rave, but at ad hoc checkpoints far away from the rave. Military checkpoints set up to intercept military re-inforcements.
The rave was not announced until the 6th of October, and Hamas was not aware of it. When people fled the rave, this triggered a massive flow of car traffic. And based on Hamas' limited intelligence, it is not unreasonable to assume that a sudden rush of car traffic could be related to the conflict.
The IDF also set up a road block near the rave, which led to a huge throng (3000 ravers) being caught near the site of the firefight.
In other words, the biggest tragedy of October 7th, the Supernova rave, was not a target, and the deaths in this tragedy seem to have been due to an unfortunate coincidence.
And the Hannibal directive absolutely plays a role. We don't actually know how many civilians died due to it. It could easily be hundreds. The only actor who could verify this is Israel, and they are not keen to do so.
Playing devil's advocate for consistency isn't racism. I'm not Israeli,
not Jewish, this isn't my nation. I object to the reasoning.
You're defending a position that doesn't actually care about Palestinian
lives. Iran has funded Hamas for decades not because it wants a Palestinian
state: it wants the end of Israel. Those aren't the same goal. You've
let a theocracy that hangs gay people and flogs women position itself as
the voice of Palestinian liberation and you haven't noticed.
I've seen the footage of Shani Louk. German tattoo artist, half-naked,
paraded on a truck while people celebrated. Then months of stories she
was alive in a Gazan hospital, used to extort money from her family. I saw a Thai farmer gruesomely beheaded by a shovel while the perpetrator screamed with joy on camera.
You want to call that resistance? Go ahead. I'll call it what it is.
Criticising Hamas doesn't mean supporting the IDF. Find one line in this
thread where I defended an Israeli war crime. One.
You called me far-right. The far-right wants ethnic cleansing. I want a
two-state settlement and both sides held to the same legal standard...
which is apparently a controversial position in this thread.
Palestinians are people. Israelis are people. The children dying in Gaza
are a catastrophe. So is raising children to believe their highest calling
is killing their neighbour. You can hold both of those thoughts unless
you've decided one side's dead children count and the other's don't.
While I agree, and I find that Israel is on the wrong side of history, I'm not entirely into seeing this whole matter as black and white.
I have the opinion that modern world history is mostly shaped around each countries/population traumas that echo through society till today.
E.g. the biggest trauma of Ukrainians aren't even the events that are playing recently, but the Holodomor that happened 100 years ago. On the other hand the biggest trauma on Russian side is still the German invasion and war of annihilation happened during the second world war. As both sides see themselves as the victims and see the other side as the aggressor (or collaborator) and none has ever taken a step back to recognize their actions, they simply cannot communicate.
The biggest trauma of China is the century of humiliation where western powers and Japan went above and beyond any decency in their actions. Thus, Chinese society and leadership is all about never being dictated conditions and terms by foreign powers. They see themselves as victims of events that they don't want to see ever again.
The jewish Israeli population biggest trauma are centuries if not millenia of animosity, racism and violence coming from any side, last but definitely not least the Holocaust. Thus Israel is all about security at all costs, even if it means bending any sign of human decency. Again, they see themselves as victims and their actions will always go in that direction.
Sadly many parts of the world, many countries, many societies, are simply too scarred and unable to take a step back from the victim mentality and recognize their own actions.
Israelis are unable to recognize they are Goliath and not David from the longest time, they are unable and unwilling to say sorry, the last Israeli leader that tried, got assassinated by one of his own.
The arabic/muslim population in the area too see themselves as victims of the post world war 2 events, and they are as well unable to recognize how scarred and traumatized is Israeli society from centuries of events, including modern ones where they had to survive against hostile Arab coalitions aimed to annihilate them.
So, without a generation of leaders able to recognize and understand the role of history and those traumas and empathize with the other sides we're trapped in those loops of aggression.
You’ve just explained my own thoughts better than I ever have been able to, especially what with the political minefield that is literally anything mentioned in your post. Brilliantly articulate. I have half a mind to commit your entire comments text to memory and just repeat it ad verbatim whenever I am asked about my opinions on these things.
you are simplifying too much - whats then US trauma in this case and all other cases of invasion and coups in the lat 75 years?
Maybe trauma you are talking about it's just excuse to control opinion of voters and manufacture consent but under the hood its just all about power and being rich (not always but in many cases).
Humoring the notion, America is a capitalist enterprise that put on the religious and humanist airs that were conveniently en vogue at the time of its founding, and which it always goes back to when its economic reality becomes too onerous. The contradiction baked into our existence is felt subconsciously by most, and there is a psychological toll taken in knowing that your society is built, in part, on hypocrisy, and having to be vigilant for when the other shoe inevitably drops, so that you can at least get out alive.
This really puts so many modern conflicts into perspective. Everyone sees themselves as victims. Unfortunately, a consensus on who is and isn't a victim will always be highly elusive.
I agree that we should remember historical traumas, but I don't agree they suffice to explain international politics.
Take the Greeks (that's my people! Us!) and the Turkish. I guess people in the West don't remember this but the Israelis are not the only people in the Middle East who have a word that means "disaster" (Shoah, for the Israelis; Καταστροφή- Catastrophe for us), that when anyone says it everyone knows exactly which disaster is spoken of. They are not the only people who lost the land their ancestors inhabited for thousands of years (Ionia, for us Greeks), who lost their greatest city (Constantinople, the City), who lost their greatest temple that was turned into a Mosque (the Hagia Sophia). Us, Greeks, too, have suffered these ignominies at the hand of the Turkish. Our common history with the Turkish is one of war, destruction, violence and blood. So much blood.
And yet, since the Catastrophe, in 1922, we have been at peace with the Turkish, even through serious hot episodes in the Mediterrannean, like Cyprus. That's 100 years of peace, after 1500 years of history of war.
It can be done. The trauma can be overcome, if both sides agree to it. To quote none other than Moshe Dayan: if you want to make peace you talk to your enemies, not your friends.
The 1923 population exchange between Greece and Turkey has probably played a role in this. Having a pond between the majority of conflicting parties might cool things down a bit.
I wonder how Greek-Turkish relations would look like if both nations were stuck in a relatively small piece of land - say, the size of the European part of Turkey. And with Constantinople/Istanbul ethnically mixed in about 50:50 ratio.
It is a lot easier to conclude peace if both adversaries have a plenty of "their own" land to live on and can sorta-kinda ignore each other while doing so.
That's perfectly fair, and also pointed out by red75prime above. We were lucky that we could put a sea between us. There's probably other geopolitical peculiarities that can have the same effect though.
I should also note that the proximity of the Greek islands to the Turkish coast has also caused friction over the years.
> The jewish Israeli population biggest trauma are centuries if not millenia of animosity, racism and violence coming from any side ... is all about security at all costs, even if it means bending any sign of human decency. Again, they see themselves as victims and their actions will always go in that direction.
I don't see this any different to terrorism apologia (the trauma of 1mn dead in Iraq and another million in Afghanistan, for example). I guess, if the leaders wear suits & ties and hide behind the garb of democracy, then we should all understand why military they command commit crimes against humanity.
Every perpetrator of terrorism sees himself as a victim. Such is the case not only with individual terrorists, who often compete with their enemies over who is more victimized, but also with terrorist groups and nation states.
- Bessel van der Kolk (author, The Body Keeps the Score: Brain, Mind, and Body in the Healing of Trauma).
The problem isn't the "trauma". The problem is the excuse.
> they are as well unable to recognize how scarred and traumatized is Israeli society from centuries of events
First, 400mn Arabs (or 2bn+ muslims) aren't a monolith or brainless zombies. Second, the "centuries of events" is just European guilt. Nothing to do with the Arab world.
> So, without a generation of leaders able to recognize and understand the role of history and those traumas and empathize with the other sides we're trapped in those loops of aggression.
The sad reality (imo) about this truth is that the qualities needed to be a leader aren't empathy. There was a vid about it which went more into detail but When you observe leaders, you find that they are extremely weird and sometimes psychopathic.
To me it also feels like if a leader is emphatetic towards the other part, other leaders more extreme would spring up saying that he's an enemy from within or something equivalent to it.
The empathy of the leader is one of the most disregarded qualities. I would go so far as to say that leaders aren't even empathetic towards the general population of their own nations/community sometimes.
It's really sad but the Empathy you mention and cowardice can look the same to many & the Empathatic leader would get booted out of/not given a chance.
For example, within America itself, I feel like John mccain was a good guy and I would consider him empathetic in the sense that I remember seeing interviews of him saying that he and Obama just have some minor differences in policy making when there were people attending his rallies asking that they don't feel safe about Obama.
I am just gonna say that This leader of republican party was lost for what is now Donald Trump.
Oh I just watched the rally/interview again[0], when he said that you don't have to be scared of Obama, he was audibly booed by the public. (But also they clapped once when he said later in the campaign that Obama was decent person?)
It isn't impossible to have empathetic leaders but I do think that perhaps as a civilization, we would need to take class act/honesty/integrity more into account than we take in the current system which to me all across the world sometimes feel like picking the lesser evil/not-greater-good at times though I can only speak for myself.
what US trauma supposed to be in this case? Only Americal Civil War and American Revolutionary War comes to my mind but have no clue how middle east mess could trigger those traumas?
The only traumas maybe related to money is ... Great Depression but it's not like somebody else was responsible for that
As Ukrainian, I don't remember launching missiles on russia, or, in fact, any aggression towards russia. In its turn russia did recognize borders with Ukraine in multiple treaties, and on top of that security guarantees promised in exchange of 3rd by the size world nuclear arsenal.
Just a quick reminder, that Iranian and Hamas policy towards Israel is extermination. Palestine was never recognized by Israel or USA. Israel is not recognized by Iran.
So tell me, what parallels do you see between these conflicts? Human misery and destruction is hardly a common ground, and even in that, scale is incomparable.
Look up what the Iranian regime has done to his people and to others, including US and European countries, since 1979 and you'll understand that the only reason US allies are cautious and not fully behind this campaign is that toppling the regime means high uncertainty as to what would replace it...
I know some people weren't alive then, but the invasion of Iraq started off pretty good for the US... Sort of how Russia imagined it's march on Kiev would go (!3) 4 years ago.
What replaced Sadaam was the US, and that went horribly for everyone.
The war started in 1948 by Europeans attempting to attack and invade Palestine to grab their land to build their mediterranean resort homes. The war never stopped. There was no surrender documents signed. The foreign invaders have always been in the state of war. It's why their colonial outposts are required to have bomb shelters.
Not sure why you would consider October 7 an "insane horror" when the foreign invaders literally burned children alive in 1948 by throwing them into ovens, as happened in the Deir Yassin massacre. Or the rape camps of Tantura. There were 15,000 innocent civilians killed by the invaders when they started this war.
I still can't believe we have to fight Israel's war for them. First the Iraq war and now the Iran war.
> The war started in 1948 by Europeans attempting to attack and invade Palestine to grab their land to build their mediterranean resort homes.
Jewish people lived there for the past two thousands years. Hebron massacre by Arabs happened in 1929.
> It's why their colonial outposts are required to have bomb shelters.
I think they have bomb shelters to save their civilians from bombs.
> Not sure why you would consider October 7 an "insane horror" when the foreign invaders literally burned children alive in 1948 by throwing them into ovens, as happened in the Deir Yassin massacre. Or the rape camps of Tantura. There were 15,000 innocent civilians killed by the invaders when they started this war.
Interesting how you are totally fine with murder of civilians as long as they are the "right" kind of civilians.
It's the Middle East. The birthplace of civilisation. Everyone can legitimately claim everyone else started every conflict in the region because war in Mesopotamia and the Levant literally predates history.
At the end of the day I believe in the primacy of the living. Crimes committed by and against those alive today are infinitely more imporant than those committed by and against their ancestors. I've seen folks take this shit back to King Herod and the Parthians, and it's not a bad historical argument. (The Romans intervened.) It's practically counterproductive, however, inasmuch as focussing on blame versus harm reduction and prevention is counterproductive in any conflict resolution.
One of the separations between the rich and peaceful and the poor and permanently warring is in capacities to forgive. Japan wouldn't be a better place if they committed terrorist attacks against their American occupiers, or decided that they needed blood for Nagasaki and Hiroshima. And Americans wouldn't be happier if we decided to lob a nuke at the British in WWII for burning down our White House in the War of 1812. (France didn't ultimately profit from the Treaty of Versailles.)
> Not sure why you would consider October 7 an "insane horror" when
No. Don't do this to yourself. I get the temptation. But it is the path to becoming a monster. October 7 was an insane horror. So were other things. Atrocities aren't signed; they don't cancel out, just accumulate.
If you're reading what I wrote as endorsing Israel's war you're exhibiting the problem with blind hate. You stop seeing the world as it is.
> It's OK to hate an entity
Sure. Hating an entity doesn't require you to endorse atrocities against its people.
> October 7 was not an insane horror. It was a perfectly fine response to such a monstrous foreign entity
One, you could literally change "October 7" to "the war in Gaza" and have the Israeli far right in a nutshell.
Two, I guess I respect you for being honest about what you believe. It's a clear position. Even if it's morally abhorrent. (You're saying killing children is okay if it's politically expedient.) But I guess there are enough people in that region who believe what you've said across various conflicts; herego this.
> Do you know how many of those killed were soldiers and security personnel?
Do I need to?
If October 7 had solely engaged military targets, the moral contours of the war would have be clear. It didn't. I'd argue it couldn't. The political forces that sustained Hamas and Sinwar did not allow for targeted, strategic strikes. Just acts of vengeance played out for an audience. (Hamas doesn't have a place in a peaceful, prosperous Palestine.)
Like, let's reverse it. Do you know how many of those killed by the IDF are bona fide militants? I don't. But I also don't think that's germane to e.g. "the Israeli military opening fire on crowds of Palestinians as they tried to make their way to the fenced enclosure to get food" [1].
> "The point is that as soon as fear, hatred, jealousy and power worship are involved, the sense of reality becomes unhinged. And, as I have pointed out already, the sense of right and wrong becomes unhinged also. There is no crime, absolutely none, that cannot be condoned when ‘our’ side commits it. Even if one does not deny that the crime has happened, even if one knows that it is exactly the same crime as one has condemned in some other case, even if one admits in an intellectual sense that it is unjustified – still one cannot feel that it is wrong. Loyalty is involved, and so pity ceases to function."
> you're going to be shocked, SHOCKED, to find out that 28% of Americans now support Hamas
No. The question is "in the Israel-Hamas conflict do you support more Israel or more Hamas?" That's different from supporting Hamas. Even I'd be on the fence about answering "more Hamas" over "more Israel," though I'd mostly be irritated at the false dichotomy and false equivalence the question implies.
(I'd guess 10 to 20% of Americans support Hamas because that's the fraction that support just about anything, from the flat Earth to the genocide of penguins or whatever.)
> that support for Hamas will only grow stronger as the elderly Americans that are still largely against Hamas die off and replaced by younger Americans that support Hamas
Dig deeper into the polls. It's a strong minority in Gen Z and Alpha. It's not commanding. And it reveals itself for what it is when you ask people to name their No. 1 issue.
I respect folks who have turned this into their pet issue. Ultimately, foreign policy isn't going to be front and centre in American politics unless there is a draft. (And most Americans aren't monsters.)
It doesn't matter if it's the #1 issue or not. What matters is the few % of people that cause tight elections to shift. And it was enough to cause Kamala Harris to lose the election. Israel's attack on Gaza was the primary reason Biden 2020 voters chose not to vote for Harris, per scientific polls (YouGov). And that was from 2 years ago. America has only become more pro-Hamas since.
You can defend the existence of the foreign genocidal state all you want but you really have to understand that Israel is cooked. There is no turning back. It's a dead state walking. And the vast majority of their base of support is in the elderly, which will all die off in 20 years.
> I guess Israel can play the "October 7th" card at least which was an insane horror.
The islamic republic of Iran has been slaughtering tens of thousands of peaceful protesters who don't want to live under sharia laws anymore. Hunting wounded in hospitals and executing them.
It's obvious there's a movement in Iran that tries to topple the islamist regime. In my city, in the EU, I see cars with iranian flags and I've seen iranian in exile call for the international community to do targetted strikes.
I'm not defending the strikes but let's not make it sound like the US is launching nukes on peaceful monks in Tibet either: we're talking about evil islamist regime that slaughtered tens of thousands of unarmed people a few weeks ago.
I was going to say it's false equivalence to compare the Russian attack on Ukraine which was peaceful with a newly installed democratic leader and Iran which has an iffy dictatorship slaughtering thousands of unarmed protestors and exporting terrorism all over with aspirations to make that nuclear.
That was obviously exaggerated, think about the planning and resources needed to execute a stadium worth of people across a country. Not possible in a few days without extreme preparation, or bodies rotting everywhere.
FIFA might be the one organization that can go toe to toe with Trump I’m corruption. And I mean that in the worst way possible. Qatar was using literal slave labor to get stadiums built and the organization just shrugged when informed like it was just another Tuesday.
He could drop a nuke on Greenland tomorrow and they’d probably say they don’t want the sport to be tangled in political disagreements and if anything the World Cup can help everyone heal.
People still believe October 7th attacks weren't intentionally allowed?
There is a lot of legitimate debate on this topic as the security failures are unusual and are still officially being discussed in Israel.
I see no "smoking gun" for this yet, but yeah, there are a lot of indicators, such as alarm calls by military observers being ignored beforehand, IDF units having been moved from the Gaza envelope to the West Bank before, etc.
Of course, Netanyahu could counter those rumors by establishing a state commission if inquiry, but instead he fights tooth and nail to prevent this from happening...
Also, the official explanation how October 7 could have happened honestly makes no sense to me. Somehow Hamas suddenly gained super powers on that day and could break through the "containment" that ostensibly had been perfectly adequate before. And because of their mysterious newfound strength, it was also imperative to bomb Gaza to bits and impossible to go back to the security situation as it was before...
The one I can't get over is that when Netanyahu was speaking at the UN, he claimed they have hacked mobile phones in Gaza to force broadcast the speech.
Yet months of co-ordination and training between various disconnected groups / gangs / militias, was completely undetectable.
It's a well documented fact that Netanyahu has always wanted and actively supported Hamas leadership in order to have no reasons to sit at the table of with the PLA.
When the other side is led by what you can easily sell to the world as terrorists, you're by default the good guys.
> well documented fact that Netanyahu has always wanted and actively supported Hamas leadership
To be fair, this is also explained by the Delcy Rodriguez strategy: the bastard you know trumps the bastard you don't. Israel could have become complacent thinking they had a deal with Hamas and, as long as they kept the money flowing, the Palestinians had no rational reason to attack. (Which they didn't. October 7 was a stupid move.)
Well either utter incompetence of every part of military of israel, or planned to allow it to happen. They even removed most of the guards spread across the region, those who were left were often only with pistols from what I've heard. They were closely monitoring hamas training for exactly this just before it happened.
Sure, some incompetent russian fsb officer who got his place thanks to nepotism may miss that, but mosad, on border with one's mortal enemy? Give me a break, there is 0 logic and knowledge of the involved parties in such thinking.
But its expected, say soviet union went to great lengths to make state terror official and legal, justified and all by th books. Not sure for whom since all knew what chaotic terror was happening all the time and there was often no logic in who was next, but the face of the regime needed to have everything straight and square.
Anyway, those who actually care about the topic understand it well, its not some superbly hidden scheming bur rather facts in plain sight. The rest of folks simply don't care
I have no special stake or knowledge of this, but Israel hasn't treated Gaza or Palestinians as their "mortal enemy"... more of a problematic-but-largely-contained source of rockets and hateful rhetoric, at least until 2023.
They have treated Palestinians as a pest to be exterminated since before Israel existed. Israels entire existence is based on the erasure of the Palestinian people.
I've listened to podcasts discussing the Israel military. One thing that people need to realize is that the IDF and it's leaders are skewed incredibly young. The mandatory service paired with the fact that people often don't stay in service means that they have 30 year old colonels and 35 year old generals.
They don't have the sort of career and institution knowledge like the US military has.
Israel obviously consists of different groups with different incentives. We shouldn't undermine the years of protests by many citizens, some of which are still seeking justice from those responsible for the security failures (particularly Netanyahu).
People like you still spread stupid lies about it, but no one with any sense believes them. There is no legitimate debate on the subject, only propaganda, and it comes from Benjamin Netanyahu directly.
Obviously, it’s the same stupidity that “allowed” the 7th of October attacks to happen. These people are way too scared and hateful of Palestinians to conspire with them like this. They allowed it to happen through sheer incompetence. They just let their guard down, quite literally.
If they could actually cooperate well enough to work together on something like the 7th of October of attacks, which were under active planning for at least two years and involved thousands of highly trained men, don’t you think they’d be able to cooperate on something positive too?
What a pile of non-sense. I despise literally everyone in the Israeli government, but suggesting this was allowed by anyone in the government/military/intelligence is the lowest low form of ridiculous conspiracy theory.
Nothing like this is "officially discussed in Israel", unless you mean "repeatedly officially denied".
In Italy a famous jewish actor commenting a law that wants to make antisemitism illegal said it's a bit weird a former fascist minister gets to decide that he's antisemite.
> Do Americans even read or care about Constitution anymore?
Supreme court does not, so why should random Americans?
It is not like the high but malleable ideals in it mattered. Its only use is to be able to claim in abstract "we have these freedoms and protection" while the court system renders them void in practice.
The hope would be if more Americans were reading it, and understanding, then they would hold leaders more accountable and we wouldn't even get in this situation. The founding fathers kind of assumed an educated population, even if debating and disagreeing, would come to better conclusions. This current method of "lets cut education so the population doesn't know what is going on" is really a long term plan for the religious right to take over. But they are thinking in decades and generations.
What does it matter? There won't be any consequences for it. He can just do this now and then later the supreme court or congress will say something that also won't matter. The trade war wasn't legal, was struck down, yet is still happening.
> Working towards war with Iran has been bipartisan US policy for decades now
Obama signed the Iran nuclear deal in July 2015 [1].
Biden didn't put any policy focus on Iran, in part becase, with the benefit of hindsight, it's difficult to distill any policy focus from that Presidency following Covid. But he also didn't ratchet up pressure in any material way [2]. (And to be clear, I'm not saying that's good.)
Islamic lunatic ayatollahs, who've shown a willingness to massacre their own people, with nukes?
Can't imagine why that would be a bad thing ...
I don't much understand that about this thread. Yes Trump bad. Yes, US should not get into another war (although in here, arguably this may avoid war, and yes, that's been said before)
But when it comes to the ayatollahs at the business end of the missiles: defending them? I mean, I understand socialists brought them to power, but still: for these particular ayatollahs, having their insides spread over a few football fields ... can't happen to a more deserving bunch.
If Iran is unhappy with their government, they can deal with it. It is not a US problem in the slightest. Going to war with another country puts Americans at risk.
> if Iran is unhappy with their government, they can deal with it. It is not a US problem
If Tehran contented itself with oppressing its own, it probably wouldn't garner too much attention. The problem is its regional proxies constantly causing a mess. It lacks anyone willing to come to its aid right now in large part because of that foreign policy.
Congress hasn't publicly supported the attack. That is an extremely important step, and required for any operation lasting more than 30 days if I'm not mistaken, but it doesn't mean a majority of Congress hasn't already made clear they do support this.
Even some of the most "left" Dems, like Elizabeth Warren, were giving Trump an emphatic standing ovation as he talked about Iran in the SotU [0].
That was literally days after Warren posted on social media about "not sending our military into another endless war in the Middle East" [1]. Look at the comments on the post - they all believe her. It's really very silly.
Yup. The Jeffries and Schumer have also signaled not that they don't support war with Iran, but they don't like being left out of the loop on planning.
This is an unfortunately a bipartisan and well supported action by congress. Dems seem to mostly just be mad about procedure rather than the results. Very similar to how they protested the Venezuela actions.
Yes both parties are war mongers but I don't think that lets Trump off the hook even a little. This wasn't necessary or inevitable. Trump's not even really trying to justify it.
I am a simple man: this regime has threatened my family, shot at some of them; it has killed soldiers from my country some time ago (during terrorists attacks in Lebanon); arrested my wife for a loose hijab, before taking her into a van and beating her up. Luckily she was spared the "rape" which is allowed under islam in those very convenient circumstances were it is halal.
That didn't really follow the "international rights" did it ?
idk, some people start to describe your actions as "theatrical micro militarism", big words, big missiles, big postures, 0 impacts on anything meaningful... unless it comes to bully your allies, there you're very strong. Trump and his friends still live in the 60s and haven't noticed the world is changing fast, especially when it comes to how the US is perceived
What I would like people to understand is that this isn't a partisan issue. As bad as Trump is, American foreign policy is uniparty. Just look at the rhetoric from the Democratic Party leadership on an Iran strike. You have the likes of Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries quibbling over the procedure not the policy, saying Congress needs to approve action, not that that action is belligerent or unwarranted.
October 7 happened under a Democratic president and continued essentially unchanged under Trump. Biden consistently lied about "red lines" and seeing a ceasefire [1].
The problem here isn't one party or one persident, it's America's commitment to imperialism, of which Iran is just one aspect. Since WW2 especially there has been so much regime change done or aided by the US as well as military action, it has it's own Wikipedia page [2].
And what did Kamala Harris promise to change about Biden's Middle East policy? Absolutely nothing [3]. It's a big part of why she lost and the DNC don't want to admit that so they're trying to cover up the 2024 autopsy [4].
Don't fool yourself into thinking anything would be different under a Kamala Harris administration.
Resisting the imperialist goals of the US itx proxies doesn't make you imperialist. It's not only moral. It's generaly permissible under international law.
Take for example the UAE, which has been hit by the Iranian response, who is essentially singlehandedly responsible for the genocide in South Sudan and it does so with the blessing of the US.
The UAE arms the RSF using arms they get from the US and steal Sudanese gold, which they launder through Dubai and Switzerland.
But let's assume, for the sake of argument, that everything Iran has done and is doing is "imperialism" (which, again, it is not), how do you even begin to argue "if not more [than the United States]"? US imperialism touches virtually every country on Earth. Iran at best has regional influence.
> It's generaly permissible under international law.
This is false, and you know it. But I will challenge you for others to see. Please point me to a statue of the international law that makes this "resistance" legal.
> Take for example the UAE, which has been hit by the Iranian response, who is essentially singlehandedly responsible for the genocide in South Sudan and it does so with the blessing of the US.
Interesting. You completely ignored that Saudis back the other side (SAF), which committed no fewer atrocities than RSF and co. Why do you single out UAE?
> The UAE arms the RSF using arms they get from the US and steal Sudanese gold, which they launder through Dubai and Switzerland.
I won't argue with that, but this is not the complete picture, and the two main warring sides in Sudan are supported by US-friendly regimes in the region.
> But let's assume, for the sake of argument, that everything Iran has done and is doing is "imperialism" (which, again, it is not), how do you even begin to argue "if not more [than the United States]"? US imperialism touches virtually every country on Earth. Iran at best has regional influence.
Two things:
1. Does the fact that IR's imperialism is regional, and anti-US, and not global makes it good?
2. It is imperialism -- IR through its militant proxies suppresses independent development of multiple states in the region. Can you explain to me how this is a good thing?
> This is false, and you know it. But I will challenge you for others to see
Sorry but it's 100% true [1][2][3]. REsisting foreign occupation and colonialism is well-recognized in several UN conventions.
> Interesting. You completely ignored that Saudis back the other side (SAF),
You mean the saudis back the actual government of South Sudan and not the rebels who are looting the country? Are you really trying to equate the two?
But let's, for the sake of argument, also condemn the Saudis in this case. This should convince you that the US only cares about selling arms and doesn't give a rats ass about genocide. That's my point.
> Does the fact that IR's imperialism is regional, and anti-US, and not global makes it good?
No, it makes it lesser. "If not more" was your quote. Definitionally, it's not. It's Middle East vs the entire globe.
> It is imperialism
It's resistance. Iran up until 1953 was a liberal democracy and the only reason it isn't is because of US interference, imperialism and adventurism.
> Can you explain to me how this is a good thing?
Resisting the imperial ambitions of a global hegemonic superpower is definitionally good.
> Sorry but it's 100% true [1][2][3]. REsisting foreign occupation and colonialism is well-recognized in several UN conventions.
Colonization and occupation is not the same as "imperialism". Please show me where "imperialism" is regulated by the international law. Second, resistance still has to comply with international laws. So, blowing up a bus with kids going to school is not resistance, but terrorism.
> You mean the saudis back the actual government of South Sudan
The government of South Sudan committed atrocities of the same scope as the RSF! Are you letting it slide because SAF is official government of Sudan??
> No, it makes it lesser. "If not more" was your quote. Definitionally, it's not. It's Middle East vs the entire globe.
I would argue it is more.
> It's resistance. Iran up until 1953 was a liberal democracy and the only reason it isn't is because of US interference, imperialism and adventurism.
> Resisting the imperial ambitions of a global hegemonic superpower is definitionally good.
I see now. As long as it opposes US, it does not matter who are the victims of the opposition because the opposition is against the US.
I’m not sure what would have happened under a Dem administration. I’m not sure I’m against action in Iran.
But one the whole like precedents of the Trump Administration, was that we were going to ignore foreign entanglements, even if they could be perceived as being in our interests.
It’s wild to me how much Trump seems like Bush 2.0 when I think Trump was something of a reaction to Bush 1.0.
The dirty little secret here is that the Democratic establishment and thus many Democratic politicians like what's happening. They just don't like how it's being done.
What's they're doing is both bad policy (IMHO) and bad politics. Why is it bad politics? Because this military action is deeply unpopular and you cannot outflank the Republican Party on the right about American imperialism. Remember when Kamala Harris promised the "most lethal" military? What does that mean? And why?
But hte other reason this is bad politics is for the reason you state: it cedes the political ground of being the "peace president" to Trump. Memories are short because he did exactly the same thing in 2015 eg [1][2] and again in 2020 eg [3]. The last one is particularly funny because Biden did exactly what Trump promised to do but the Trump still beat Biden over the head for it.
There's no consistency in any of this. Trump was never a peace president. We knew it was a lie at the time. We know it's a lie now. Nobody cares.
But when the supposed opposition party mirrors his policy positions and offers no resistance to anything that's happening, who are voters going to listen to? The guy who talks about peace, even though he's lying, or the guy who says nothing about peace and just thinks Trump should've consulted with Congress but nothing otherwise should change? Or, worse, sometimes Trump isn't being tough enough?
Then Senator Joe Biden in 1986 called Israel "the best $3 billion we make" and if Israel didn't exist we'd invent on to protect our interests [4] while Ronald Reagan's Secretary of State called Israel an unsinkable aircraft carrier in the region.
The JCPOA was a rare W for Obama (who was otherwise the Deporter-in-Chief and the Drone King). Trump of course dismantled it at the behest of the Adelsons. Did Biden reinstate it? Of course not.
The best case for an establishment Democratic administration now is to do nothing while promising nothing and reversing nothing that ultimately brings in the next Trump, just as Biden/Harris did in 2024.
That's the long version of why I say there's no difference. In the short term there might be. Even that's debatable of course. But long term the ratchet effect only gets worse.
What planet do you live on that you think it’s a secret? It’s bright as day. It’s why I support the Democratic Party. Of course they support this action, it’s probably the right thing to do.(Though you’re right I don’t Trust Hegseth to do this right. He’s like Hubris walking and at least one report said the didn’t have the support of the generals)
One of the reasons I didn’t support Trump because he was the America First non-interventionist. I’m lamenting the fact that Trump’s supporters who were betrayed. It’s Trump who’s the one who did nothing and will bring in more Democrats, or the other way around.
So much of both parties is actually alike, underneath a window dressing of differences (eg woke/anti woke), and a complicit media which does its best to amplify and brainwash people into believing. When it comes to policies that actually affect the elites, the deep state military industrial complex/intelligence services or financial interests, it is a uniparty. Look at how Obama continued the war on terror for example, after running on “hope and change”.
Several military leaders expressed surprise at how gung-ho Obama was with foreign policy regarding the gwot. He literally executed an American citizen via drone. He didn’t even pay lip service to hope and change. Dubya also ran on a non-interventionist platform, and Trump ran on “drain the swap” and non-interventionism as well.
Anyway this is missing the wood for the trees. The point is, the uniparty very much exists, despite the downvotes. Foreign policy, bailing out banks, bowing down to the military industrial complex are very much remarkably consistent uniparty positions.
Without a doubt it's a "least worst" scenario. The best solution is to not empower the people who got us there. A distant second is to not give them back control eight years later.
I'm still interested to hear of a better c.2009 peace plan.
You say that like US and Israel hit Iceland or Portugal. Like, Iran wasn't source of terror on Middle East, funding terrorist groups like Hamas, Hezbolla and Houthi. Like, Iran didn't make "death to Israel, death to America" their national idea.
Remind us of Ukrainian rocket attacks on Russian cities, that provoked Ruso-Ukrainian war.
You can't not know all of this, so you're either a hamas/russian shill or a useful idiot.
Are you talking about the support Israel provided for Gaza for decades, like electricity and water? They had good intentions, I would give Israel second chance.
I really hope our Government seeks out all these terrorists and Iran boosters on Hacker News who work in high tech. It’s a supply chain risk and none of them should be working.
That's the policy being followed here. If you remember back a few weeks, Iran killed likely 30,000 of its own citizens. On top of that, they will not negotiate about medium and short-range missiles or stopping of nuclear production.
A power like that that happily goes after it's neighbors, directly or indirectly is a threat to everyone.
Applying those particular criticisms to Iran and not Israel is a special kind of irony given the past ~75 years (but especially the last 2-3), and when the latter is presently attacking the former unprovoked.
Islamic Republic sees itself as a vehicle to spread Islamic revolution around the world.
Just listen to their internal rhetoric, watch who they find and why, and it is clear. However, since it’s Trump who is bombing IR, people will defend the IR regardless of what the IR stands for.
Tough news day for anyone who has a difficult time holding contradictory ideas in their mind. Pretty sure that includes myself.
On the one hand, Trump is awful for the USA, and the world.
On the other hand, there is a possibility that the freedom-wanting citizens of Iran finally have a slight chance of achieving their goal.
The chance of something truly positive happening seems low. However, as someone who has, for years, watched what happens in Iran via the lens of https://old.reddit.com/r/newiran, I am allowing myself the slightest amount of hope. Iranian people deserve it.
Of course, there is a large chance of this blowing up into something really bad for everyone.
edit: This Ukrainian is currently live streaming with OSINT, and his takes align with many of my actual realist thoughts:
Sure seems that way. I don't really see how this military action is justified from a US perspective. Or even from an Israeli one. The most likely justification is that the leadership of the US and Israel are a little bit unhinged and want a war to distract from domestic issues.
Though I suppose you could say he's lying, it's staged etc. In the same way that the religious attribute every good thing to their god and every bad thing to their devil.
Netanjahu is old and wants to secure his 'legacy' by being credited for dismantling Iran, knowing Trump will back him both because he's been fed BS and because the Israelis have enough kompromat to sink him. There's no 'rational' justification for this attack, only madness and huge egos.
What kompromat would even affect Trump at this point? He's been proven to be deep in bed with a literal pedophilic cabal of elites, what on Earth else could they have on this guy that would affect anything?
Well, it's plausibly justified because the US considers a strong regional ally like Israel a valuable asset to have in the Middle East and if Israel is a regional hegemon [1] then all the better.
There have been many arguments that the US' support of Israel goes against US interests [2], but that really makes no sense. It's not just Trump who has to be convinced to start a war for Israel, it's the entire defense establishment in the US.
And also in Israel. If fighting half a dozen wars all at once was really that bad for Israel, surely, someone would have put a stop in it.
Surely.
_____________
[1] Got that term from J. Mearsheimer, if you were wondering.
[2] Particularly the Tucker Carlson - Judge Napolitano - Col. Daniel Davies continuum of mostly conservative podcast hosts. Or those are the ones I follow closely anyway. They're all convinced it's all "because of the lobby".
If you're talking about Israel, why choose to move there then? Few Israelis have long-running roots in the country, it's mostly recent immigrants or their children.
This feels a lot like the people building a home next to an airport and then complaining about the noise.
Besides, are you sure "your house" wasn't stolen from someone? That's hardly uncommon in Israel.
Israel is 80 years old, I was born here and I’m 25 years old. The funny thing is my parents immigrated from Russia so you probably won’t want me there either (me too). Your argument is bad.
You don't need one, it is very easy to emigrate to many western countries as an Israeli passport holder. There's also a chance you qualify for one of the EU citizenship schemes for jewish descendants. You don't have to choose to live in an apartheid state.
At least if you only held a Russian passport you could plausibly claim that it's somewhat difficult to move anywhere nice.
> I live in a home that is younger than 80 years as most Israelis do
I guess that makes it better. Truly, a shining example of Israeli moral superiority.
I can easily find ownership records going back more than 500 years for the land I live on. Odds are it'd be trivial to go even further.
What about the land you live on? Who owned it 100 years ago and how'd it end up in your possession? How do you think those records would tend to look in Israel? What kind of stories do you think they would tell? Would it be a good look for Israeli people?
My grand grandparent had a factory and a mansion in Poland , which was stolen by the nazis. My family moved with 0 assets to Israel to rebuild themselves. Will you please pay me the sum lost with dividends so I can return to Poland?
The entire continent of North America changed hands in the last 250 years many European lands changed hands in the last 150 years, some Israeli lands changed hands in the last 80 years, why should only we open our records?
The Romani people. Perhaps even Jews, depending on attitudes towards Israel.
Probably other groups who are even less visible, so we don't know about the challenges they face. The 19th century push for nation states has marginalized and tried to erase many groups.
wake me up when Spain has let their minorities a path for self determination and when you do something about the savages that loot and destroy everything in your previous held colonies like Wagner and the Russian African Corpus
Do you disagree that there's a good chance that by choosing to live and pay taxes in Israel you're going to have a net negative effect on the future of the Palestinians over your lifetime?
You hold me to inhuman standards you do not uphold in your personal life.
The current government is bad for me and bad for the Palestinians I strive for a better one, and I’m here to stay
Thanks god, what a contribution to the world! Hope you having a nice time in this historic tiny minuscule moment of peace your continent is having, while you sit on an economy based on generations that robbed entire continents naked and then benefited from child labor of those continents!
But in this tiny point of peace you don’t dedicate any portion of your life to help 3rd world countries or any global causes like the environment
But tell me to move one of your countries that have right wing parties rising in the polls because some tiny percent of your population became Muslim.
You will watch with me your politicians throw away this high morality you hold the second a Russian missile hit the ground in Western Europe and you with them
> You will watch with me your politicians throw away this high morality you hold the second a Russian missile hit the ground in Western Europe and you with them
What are you implying? It's totally fine to defend yourself against aggressors.
The problem is that in the Israel-Palestine conflict, Israel has always been the aggressor.
Oh Drop down from your high horse, let’s ask you what have you done for example for the environment have you quit your job to join a cause to for the environment? Have you stopped buying things from china? Have you completely stopped consuming fast fashion?
I won’t leave my friends and family and rather fight for the values of this country from here
I can't commment on your values because I don't know you but I can confidently say that zionist values are nazi values. Just listen to your own government leaders like Ben gvir or likund writings. literally word for word sounds like something Hitler and leaders of the nazi party would have said with [search replace arayan -> jew.]
here's some quotes. please tell me, hitler or gvir
"We have to speak honestly. That there are many, many ___ – I didn't say all the ___, but a lot of __ who are not loyal to the ____. Undoubtedly, their vote is endangering ____, … Any normal country would not let them vote. Unfortunately, we are allowing hundreds of thousands of people who are disloyal to ____ to vote in the elections... "
"I am unequivocally against executing the ____ murderer of ____ and in favor of killing the ____ murderers of _____"
"There are many ____ who are disloyal and those who are not loyal should not be here.""
I rather dislike her, but on it's worst day a Marine Le Pen-led government in France wouldn't even come close to doing anything nearly as bad as Israel does every day.
That’s not because French society is different than Israeli society, it’s because French society cards are much better. It has far more stable economy and political system because of hundreds of years of colonialism and wars in Europe which render France the Resourceful state which it is today, if Marine La Pen could rise to almost win the election because of migration imagine what could happen if France was surrounded with states that host militants that want to anhilate it and stand attacks like the 7th of October (1,200 killed and raped in one day + parts of the country occupied for couple of days).
Instead you chose to sit in your high horse attributed to you by previous generations that looted and killed anything in sight and after that somehow built a liberal society you have contributed nothing to, and you then ask me to leave my country instead of recognizing liberal people exist in both sides of the Israeli Palestinian conflict and they’re your allies
>Oh Drop down from your high horse, let’s ask you what have you done for example for the environment have you quit your job to join a cause to for the environment? Have you stopped buying things from china? Have you completely stopped consuming fast fashion?
I hope this particularly weak whataboutism helps you feel better about your indefensible moral position.
> fight for the values of this country from here
Apartheid being one of the core values worth fighting for, apparently.
I'm sure Hamas would say the same, it's just about how that peace is reached and how it looks like in the end. The typical Israeli vision of peace isn't any better than the typical Palestinian vision of peace.
I’m not a politician nor all the information is available to me on what can be done and what not
My moral compass says the following -
1. First of all securing our own democracy from all the internal authoritarian movements
2. Creating a situation were any Palestinian can live respectfully, feed their family and get education
From there state decision should be far more easier.
> 1. First of all securing our own democracy from all the internal authoritarian movements
perfectly reasonable ask. 3 years ago, I would have been perfectly fine if they demonstrated interest in that. Instead we have people like Ben gvir openly spout ethnosupremacist vitriol that would make hitler blush. Now my instagram is full of that man touring prisons where he brags about executing people who clearly show signs of torture. (and this is what they are COMFORTABLE SHOWING) between that and his approval ratings (60% of israelis want to relocate Palestinians somewhere else Its clear that the whole society is rotten from the top down.
Why? First of all, we tried to give citizenship to Palestinians in East Jerusalem, they refuse.
Second, are you suggesting to annex Gaza and th West Bank, and giving them citizenship? That means the come election, Hamas would be the biggest party in the Knesset, revoke all democratic rights, and create a sharia state. That will be the end of the only democracy in the Middle East.
What do you mean by effectively under Israeli governance? In Jerusalem they refuse citizenship. In the West Bank they are Palestinian citizens, in Gaza they are Gazan citizens, not my fault that both sides chose a dictatorship 20 years ago.
Is this what every American tell themselves when they wake up in the morning? Or that what every Arab says to himself outside of Yemen, Saudi and Oman?
Yes every morning I wake up and think, why are my tax dollars going towards a parasitic entity who has taken complete control over our government to fight it's wars for them when we can barely afford basic necessities at home.
> I mean, by the letter of things I am assuming that Jason is supporting the genocide of Palestinians.
> Nobody living would care anymore, I guess.
You might want to brush up on HN's guidelines if you think that these comments are acceptable here:
Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community.
Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.
Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents. Omit internet tropes.
I'm not sure, maybe you can find a way to express it without breaking HN guidelines.
Your accusation was way off-base and deliberately offensive. You are capable of making the same point without stooping down the hierarchy of disagreement, so do it.
It was their country before you guys showed up with guns and kicked them out.
The only reason it still exists is because of a massive propaganda machine designed to misrepresent the whole situation to the American people who's tax dollars are bankrolling it.
Ah! We’re going with history. Awesome. This country was Jewish before Islam even existed, according to many, many, many archeological findings. So is your position is to exile all non Jews from Israel?
The majority of you are descendents of european converts cosplaying as middleasterners.
That said, I support jews who were there before 1950s and the ones who are actually willing to make peace with palestinans and live alongside without an apartheid ethnostate. They are welcome to live in Israel and I wish them peace.
The rest of you who are defending or taking part in this genocide should absolutely be exiled.
> Second, half of the Israeli Jews were ethnically cleansed from Arabic and Muslim countries.
And the solution to that was to create an apartheid state where you forced palestinians to live as second class citizens in their ancestral home?
Last I checked, there are plenty of jews in morocco and Iran. I've met a few.
> And thank you for having the 1950 cutoff, since my family came to Israel before that.
Glad that you found a loophole that lets you defend literal genocide while clinging to your land claim as if that was the part I had a major problem with. you certainly got me there.
Given a choice between saying you don't support the genocide of the palestinian people and being there before the 1950's, you chose the later. you do understand how that makes you look right? like I'm shocked at your lack of self awareness here.
You are perfectly welcome to be a racist piece of shit. its your right I guess. but don't turn around and act like you're the victim when everyone hates you.
> Plenty Moroccan Jews in Morocco - 300,000 in 1950, 2,250 in 2026.
> Iran - 150,000 in 1950, 15,000 in 2026.
Its definitely ethnic cleansing and it shouldn't have happened either. I wish we stood up to stop it back then. I didn't say anything about it back then because I wasn't alive back then to speak out against it. I'm alive now and THIS genocide that your people are committing is what I'm speaking out against because Im against genocide. I know there are other genocides going around in the world but this one is being funded with MY tax dollars.
Like people who live in Iran or did you live in Gaza? Average joes pay the price. Bibi, on the other hand, needs to keep any war going lest he some day goes to trial.
I’m willing to pay the price to achieve peace. I know I have defense and fortifications (and if your in Europe, you most likely have the same defenses) and can endure. Iran and Gaza have 0 defenses, and yet the chose to start a war.
They have chosen the weekend not to disturb the stock markets. They may pull that off when they get inside support as the corruption of the regime has made it unpopular with business class and the middle class. Trump may achieve another 'Venezuela' short war.
I'm very skeptical that external attacks bring about a resurgence of domestic Iranian protest resulting in a tidy regime change. I think the downward lurch of BTC tells you how it's going to go, because Trump's mouth is writing checks others are going to have to cash and there's a lot of contradictions involved.
How is he guaranteeing immunity to members of Iran's Revolutionary Guard if they do nothing? Likewise, if he's telling the general Iranian public to simultaneously rise up and stay home, how does he plan to manage the hoped-for happy ending? In the event they succeed and topple the regime, are they just going to let bygones be bygones with the suddenly displaced IRGC while also giving Trump the keys to their treasury?
Rep Raskin said his search of the unredacted Epstein files found Trump listed more than one million times.[1]
And just days ago it was discovered that documents involving FBI investigations into allegations by one or more victims against Epstein and Trump were not released by the DOJ.[2]
I trust Trump still has time to testify to Congress about his connections to Epstein like others have been doing.
Meanwhile yesterday:
>>>the U.S. designated Iran as a “state sponsor of wrongful detention” and demanded that the country release any Americans in its detention.[3]
Are there any accurate sources on how many Iranian citizens the Iran regime has killed in the past couple of months? (some sources suggest tens of thousands, but I wonder if it could be a 'WMDs' situation [lie to get support for a war]).
Trump said in the State of the Union [0]:
> in just over the past couple of months with the protests they've killed at least 32000 protestors
And just moments ago Trump says 'tens of thousands' [1]
I don't get that argument at all. Americans felt that they were missing out on all the fun, so they decided to kill even more Iranians? Does anyone really believe that bombing cities saves lives?
This is exactly what was claimed in Iraq, and while I'm sure you can find some few idiots or optimists, it is completely false at the relevant level. There is no such thing, and has never been such a thing, as a country welcoming an invasion by another country, at least not in the last few hundred years since nation states developed, and since explosives became the major means of war.
This is especially false in Iran in relation to USA intervention, since both the democrats and the fundamentalists still remember how the USA & UK deposed their last democratic leaders and (re) installed the brutal dictatorship of the Shah, who both parts of Iranian society hate and remeber being oppressed by today.
The diaspora and the clans are cheering for sure, as well as a lot of people who lost their operations when the Taliban took Afghanistan back.
But the clans are way, way weaker than they were when they did their coup against Mosaddegh, so it will be extremely expensive for the US to keep control this time.
Why are we even talking about this? As if this is being done for the 'protestors'? Netanyahu didn't visit the White House 6 times in the last year to advocate for the welfare of the Iranian people. The "negotiations" over the last several weeks weren't over protestors - it was over the Nuclear program, ballistic program and proxy forces. It wasn't even about US interests. Iran offered mining, oil and other valuable rights. Trump wasn't buying. This is about Israel's national security interests and hegemonic ambitions. Protestors are just pawns in service of that.
If this turns into a full-scale war or a civil war breaks out, we are looking at 1 million Iranian deaths conservatively speaking. Just look at happened at every single foreign intervention in the region - Iraq, Syria, Libya, Sudan, Somalia. How does a million dead Iranians help them? How does it help the Americans, and the world if oil infrastructures or shipping lanes are targeted ? How does it help the region or Europe when millions of refugees flood out, and armouries are broken open and weapons and insurgents flood the region (like it did with Iraq and Libya)? It helps Israel greatly though, since they take out their arch nemesis, their conventional military and the nuclear program. And they think can shield themselves from the chaos they create around them.
Apparently you don't even have to give Americans the neocon foreign policy spin anymore, we generate it ourselves.
To wit, after Maduro was kidnapped and the exact same regime kept in place (minus selling oil to Cuba), and Trump openly said it was to control the oil, most of the reactions were pretending we live in a universe where the US does these things to spread democracy.
Its probably not the reason they are attacking (except in as much that it makes the iranian regime vulnerable). However i would say that yes, humanitarian intervention is one of the only non self-defense justifications for war that anyone has ever accepted in the post-ww2 era. (Edit: to clarify, im saying its the type of thing people build justifications for war around. Whether its a valid justification on this specific case is probably highly debatable. I think a reasonable argument could be made)
> However i would say that yes, humanitarian intervention is one of the only non self-defense justifications for war that anyone has ever accepted in the post-ww2 era
So when is the US intervening in Ukraine then? Russia is literally doing human safari with drones hunting down civilians in Kherson.
Can the US or Israel morally claim “humanitarian” intervention given what’s happening in parallel in Gaza? If Iran bombed Tel Aviv would you call it a humanitarian intervention? Is this a creative use of the term? When you make a “humanitarian” intervention to save some humans, while decimating others it sounds like you think the “others” are not/sub-humans.
But this will undoubtedly increase the general level of adversarial feelings and justifications of violence worldwide for many decades to come. The seeds of the next ISIS were planted today
I've long suspected DJT is on a rampage of radical, ragebait news worthy actions to take the news away from the Epstein files. I hate that it's working and many people have to suffer because of it.
I really do not even want to understand the mental gymnastics which one has to undertake to justify the actions of the US and Israel in recent years.
Nor do I even know how to begin to grasp the enablement displayed by Europe as a whole. People constantly cite China’s “human rights abuses” (which seem to pale in comparison to all this) and rightly so, but continue to enable this blood thirsty and power hungry tag team to indulge in flagrant abuses of international law and general morality.
This is a sad day for level headed and empathetic humans across the globe. At which point do we accept that WW3 began quite a while ago? Because it sure as shit did.
Edit: fully expect this to be downvoted to oblivion but it’s my truth.
To add to this: anyone who still does not see that Israel is by and far the most dangerous rogue state in the region is (at best) blinded by propaganda.
Iran has repeatedly demonstrated restraint and pragmatism throughout these aggressions on their sovereignty, starting with Israel’s strike on their consulate in Damascus.
There is a curious cognitive dissonance in which people think is somehow more morally correct to do human rights abuses abroad than at home. The US is doing both currently, though.
Very level headed and empathetic to go and claim that 50 countries just lost their right to criticize China because US and Israel are fighting Iran. Trolls having their priorities straight!
Whenever certain countries start a war, China is used as a tool to divert attention. People don't discuss the right or wrong of the countries involved in the war, but they keep saying China, China...
Apropos of nothing in particular, back in the previous millennium, UNIX (and Linux) had the `fortune` command. It would spew out a "cookie" - a pithy one-/two-liner, usually funny, often thought-provoking, and sometimes offensive (when invoked with `fortune -o`)
I had added it to my `motd`; it would give me a chuckle every time I logged in.
One of the cookies I recall:
A nuclear war can ruin your whole day. [1]
And that's what I think of when I see this absurd new war.
At this point, no country in the world will ever again 'make a deal' with the US, because while pretending to negotiate with you they try to ram a knife into your back.
The world already know this. Having an agreement with the USA is a lot like having an agreement with Darth Vader. The terms of the deal can be altered unexpectedly at any time.
That doesn't mean that such agreements are worthless. They can still be of value to the counties making them. It is just that those countries have to take into account the unreliability of the entity they are making the deal with. Deals with the USA involve a lot of forecasting.
It was pretty obvious that if the negotiations failed that the US would respond by attacking Iran. Iran didn't seem willing to give up their nuclear weapons program regardless of the quite predictable consequences.
I doubt the negotiations were in good faith, probably just a political 'see, we tried' gesture full of deal-breaker bad faith proposals. I think the plan all along has been to attack, probably for more than a year.
You don't go and rename a whole federal department to 'Department of War' when you don't intend to get into wars.
> I doubt the negotiations were in good faith, probably just a political 'see, we tried' gesture full of deal-breaker bad faith proposals.
Iranian officials made public statements refusing to give up their nuclear weapons program so they weren't negotiating in good faith either. Terrorists like the Iranian regime can never be allowed to have access to nuclear weapons for obvious reasons.
Iran has always said they don’t have a nuclear weapons program, so where are you getting this wild claim that suddenly they do a 180 on its existence, and at the same time announce refuse to give it up?
> Iran has always said they don’t have a nuclear weapons program, so where are you getting this wild claim that suddenly they do a 180 on its existence, and at the same time announce refuse to give it up?
You do not enrich uranium to 60% like Iran was doing unless you have a nuclear weapons program.
1. The U.S. and Iran had already negotiated and signed a nuclear agreement between our countries but Trump reneged on the already-negotiated agreement.
2. Trump claimed that his previous attacks on Iran within the last year “completely and totally obliterated” their nuclear program, “obliterated like nobody’s ever seen before” - both direct Trump quotes. Trump was quite clear that Iran’s nuclear program had already been destroyed like nothing had ever been destroyed before.
> 1. The U.S. and Iran had already negotiated and signed a nuclear agreement between our countries but Trump reneged on the already-negotiated agreement.
Yeah, I agree that was probably a bad idea, doesn't make what I stated above any less true.
> 2. Trump claimed that his previous attacks on Iran within the last year “completely and totally obliterated” their nuclear program, “obliterated like nobody’s ever seen before” - both direct Trump quotes. Trump was quite clear that Iran’s nuclear program had already been destroyed like nothing had ever been destroyed before.
Yes...Trump lies all the time, that's nothing new.
Yes it does, it makes everything you said untrue. You stated Iran doesn't want to give up its nuclear programme, not true. Iran in fact already did agree to it, Trump then threw that in the trash.
Second, it shows the Nuclear threat wasn't the issue because he had a solution for it and threw it away. Then bombed Iran destroying it ostensibly, then continued bombing for regime change. So it's not obvious negotiations failed over nuclear which you stated, because it wasn't about nuclear.
Negotiations failed over dismantling Iranian power, mostly its ballistic weapons. i.e. give up weapons and make yourself defenseless to maintain peace. Like the Palestinians did with Israel, after which they're still being murdered daily, aid is still being blocked, and the west bank is increasingly being colonised. In other words an absurd ask from a sovereign country with multiple expansionist neighbours including one that bombed you and virtually all its neighbours last year.
> You stated Iran doesn't want to give up its nuclear programme, not true. Iran in fact already did agree to it
JCPOA didn't fully eliminate the nuclear program, it mostly just kept it from getting too far along.
> Second, it shows the Nuclear threat wasn't the issue because he had a solution for it and threw it away. Then bombed Iran destroying it ostensibly, then continued bombing for regime change. So it's not obvious negotiations failed over nuclear which you stated, because it wasn't about nuclear.
Nuclear isn't the only issue either, but Iranian officials made it clear they would not give up their nuclear program.
> Negotiations failed over dismantling Iranian power, mostly its ballistic weapons. i.e. give up weapons and make yourself defenseless to maintain peace.
Iran isn't interested in maintaining peace, they want to continue destabilizing the entire region.
> Like the Palestinians did with Israel, after which they're still being murdered daily, aid is still being blocked, and the west bank is increasingly being colonised.
Last I checked Hamas has refused to give up their weapons.
> In other words an absurd ask from a sovereign country with multiple expansionist neighbours including one that bombed you and virtually all its neighbours last year.
Iran has repeatedly threatened the destruction of Israel, it's not surprising that Israel and the US are taking those threats seriously.
Yes it did give up the nuclear program with respect to it being a weapon's program, this is what every expert agrees with. Also the reason every country signed this deal.
> Nuclear isn't the only issue either, but Iranian officials made it clear they would not give up their nuclear program.
False, they were very clear they would give it up. Are you at all aware of what Iran has been saying through its diplomatic channels? Listen to what the neutral parties are saying, it's clear on this.
> Iran isn't interested in maintaining peace, they want to continue destabilizing the entire region.
Alright time to stop talking to you. You've got a very black/white child like view on geopolitics.
> Last I checked Hamas has refused to give up their weapons.
Hamas had one lever to pull: hostages. Hamas gave the last tens of them up in return for a cease-fire to stop the killing of at the time exceeding 100 thousand civilians (admitted by Israel itself), but Israeli killing and expansion has only continued. Iran set-up the deal, US tore its own deal apart and bombed it. Do you think these are parties to make another deal with, to give up any leverage you still have in the hope they won't reneg later and leave you worse off? Don't be silly.
> Iran has repeatedly threatened the destruction of Israel, it's not surprising that Israel and the US are taking those threats seriously.
As have Israel and the US, does it warrant a strike on these countries? Don't be ridiculous, it's rhetoric to the base. What matters is policy. Israel has expanded its borders, Iran hasn't. Israel has bombed Iran and assasinated its leadership, the reverse isn't true. Israel and US reneged on their agreements that Iran upheld.
> Yes it did give up the nuclear program with respect to it being a weapon's program, this is what every expert agrees with.
Iran's nuclear program has essentially always been a weapons program, their public statements about their nuclear program being only for peaceful purposes have never been true.
> False, they were very clear they would give it up. Are you at all aware of what Iran has been saying through its diplomatic channels? Listen to what the neutral parties are saying, it's clear on this.
Just listen to the statements Iranian officials have made in regards to giving up enrichment[0], their position has been that they will never give it up.
> Hamas had one lever to pull: hostages.
Hamas holding hostages wasn't helping their position.
> stop the killing of at the time exceeding 100 thousand civilians (admitted by Israel itself)
When has Israel admitted this?
> Iran set-up the deal, US tore its own deal apart and bombed it. Do you think these are parties to make another deal with, to give up any leverage you still have in the hope they won't reneg later and leave you worse off? Don't be silly.
I think tearing up the deal was probably a bad idea, but Iran didn't stop building ballistic missiles or funding proxies either so it's not like the deal stopped their hostile actions entirely.
> As have Israel and the US, does it warrant a strike on these countries? Don't be ridiculous, it's rhetoric to the base. What matters is policy.
Israel and the US have never advocated for the destruction of Iran in the way Iran advocates for the destruction of Israel.
> Israel has expanded its borders, Iran hasn't.
Israel's border situation is a huge mess, but that's largely due to Palestinians refusing to in good faith negotiate a peace deal with Israel that would actually establish proper boarders. What does that have to do with Iran?
> Israel has bombed Iran and assasinated its leadership, the reverse isn't true.
Just because Iran doesn't have that capability doesn't mean they wouldn't if they did.
The 'solution' explicitly allowed (by 2031) unlimited enrichment, burying centrifuges, and purchasing unlimited amounts of AD. Then no US admin could have possibly prevented an Iranian nuke. Once the faction who tried to make an ally of Iran got voted out, JCPOA was going to go. Negotiations then failed cuz Iran demanded 20% enrichment which was ridiculous. My favorite though is making the regime calling 'death to X' all the time appear as the one being defensive.
What are you talking about? Completely false and misleading.
> The 'solution' explicitly allowed (by 2031) unlimited enrichment, burying centrifuges, and purchasing unlimited amounts of AD. Then no US admin could have possibly prevented an Iranian nuke.
It was an agreement for 15 years. It doesn't at all 'explicitly allow unlimited enrichment' after the 15 year period. It just means that the JCPOA's limits would drop, and the regular NPT limits would still apply, including monitoring and inspections, which allows civilian but not military enrichment, and allows the US' military options with full transparency as opposed to Iran not letting in any inspections in the almost 8 years since Trump broke the deal.
Plus with this deal you'd have control for 15 years, and a 15 year window to negotiate additional safeguards as you see fit, or resort to military options as they do now. While negotiating this deal you'd have an assurance they aren't and can't build a bomb, and can ramp up pressure, and maintain sincerity to allow the other side of the table to agree to further demands.
Instead Trump threw this control away in 12 years ahead of schedule, removing ALL safeguards for the last 8 years and next 4 years, threw away ALL trust in the US's sincerity to make and keep deals making future deals less likely, and making a military intervention much more likely to be required. It's an absurd idea to have cancelled this deal with the view to control Iran's nuclear weapon ambitions, but it makes total sense for a president that wanted to attack Iran later down the line and needed arguments to do so, contrary entirely to what he campaigned on which is that Dems would get into a military conflict with Iran and he wouldn't.
> Once the faction who tried to make an ally of Iran got voted out, JCPOA was going to go.
Absolutely absurd to think Democrats tried to make Iran into an ally. Diplomatic engagement with Iran (which is done by all parties and their enemies, e.g. China, Soviets/Russians etc) is completely different from making a mortal enemy into an ally. Just absurd.
> JCPOA was going to go. Negotiations then failed cuz Iran demanded 20% enrichment which was ridiculous.
Firstly the 20% was prohibited in the JCPOA. I hope I need not spend any further words and the picture is obvious to you now? If it's true that as you claim that, if Iran had accepted 20%, that it would've led to a successful negotiated deal with Trump, how idiotic is Trump then to have thrown away a deal 8 years ago that already capped it at 3.5%?
So if true, your argument makes no sense. But it's not even true. The mediators between US/Iran in the diplomatic talks in the last weeks noted explicitly and clearly that Iran was willing to agree to zero stockpiling and zero accumulation, and converting existing stockpiles into irreversible fuel, and letting in inspectors in full. i.e. zero existential crisis for its neighbours. They weren't willing to give up their drone/missile program, i.e. become a defenseless country ready to be eaten up a few years later with no recourse, i.e. maintain fighting power without being an existential threat to anyone. That's an entirely natural for a sovereign state.
It's entirely reasonable to accept this deal if you want to operate in international law. If you want to rip up an existing deal to prevent a weapon, then refuse another deal to prevent such a weapon, then lie about an imminent threat of nuclear weapons which your own intelligence agencies refute, and then attack illegally under international law with no international support, then yes by all means go for it. But don't think it's not obvious that it's all a big and obvious lie, which you seem to parrot cluelessly.
First, JCPOA restrictions would have started to end this year, the 2031 situation was just extra bad.
Second, had NPT been enough, why was JCPOA necessary? Because NPT was not near enough to stop a determined state. NPT 'limits' do not limit enrichment. They just state enrichment must be done for civilian purposes and leave no enforcement mechanism. JCPOA also had no real enforcement mechanism starting in 2026. Iran could have simply taken all the money, buy weapons (legally), reach the legal max (which is basically infinity in 2031, a bit less earlier), and pressed forwards immediately. There was simply no way to enforce (some people think _this_ operation is too risky! Now lets give Iran over a trillion dollars and years to prepare).
Third, you're just wrong about current negotiations. Iran explicitly demanded 20%[0], beyond the JCPOA and with no civilian use.
Look, JCPOA debates always end in the same way. The advocates are asked how the original deal was enforceable in any way past 2031 (or even 2026) and they have to deploy word salad because the actual answer is 'Iran could have easily built a nuke, inspectors just allow us to see it but they would have been no way to do something about it'. It would be more honest if many of them just admitted they wanted to allow Iranian nukes.
"In the middle of negotiations" is arguably more and more used as a carte blanche to do whatever you want in the meantime. Prominent recent example being Putin pretending to be ready to negotiate for peace while bombing Ukraine.
The question is really whether negotiations were going on in good faith with the actual goal of realistic compromise.
What's predictable is, if you don't have nuclear weapons, you get attacked. Ask Ukraine. If I were a small country (any country for that matter) the first order of business would be to build myself nuclear weapons now.
Ask Libya. They gave up their nuclear weapons program as a sign of good will.
The US then lied through their teeth to the security council about wanting to conduct a humanitarian operation and instead acted as the rebels' air force, helping them win and subsequently leaving the country in utter ruin.
You all just keep lying endlessly, I think most people get it at this point. Iran was prepared to go further than the JCPOA, it was never enough because it was never about nuclear weapons.
I speak Persian (Farsi) and in state TV, every day, they said we won’t back down and won’t give up anything. Watch the supreme leader’s translated speech. Straight from the horse mouth! Who’s lying here?
Just to be clear I’m not pro war! I take Iranian regime as the first and foremost responsible party in this mess and then US! My people stuck in this disaster of a power struggle.
What do you even think the words diplomacy and negotiation even mean? Of course it included independent oversight to any extend the US wanted. There is nothing that Iran can do to satisfy the requirements for peace because the goal of the US is war, Iran has no interest in war that leads to their destruction. For fuck sake it didn't even include any sanction relief! Wake the fuck up!
The magnitude of human suffering this will bring, civil war, sectarian violence, it all leads to hundreds of millions of people dying, millions of people displaced. Nobody likes the Iranian regime, just like nobody liked Saddam, its not the point. These wars are barbaric, not in the interests of anybody but Israel and a select few American arms dealers and pedophiles that propagandize their way to barely conscious sheep in the west clapping along to the barbarism AGAIN.
The obnoxious sanctimonious behavior of telling random Iranians to “wake the fuck up” as if we have a saying in what either Iranian government or the US side does. Go pound sand.
Evidently I care more about the hundreds of thousands of Iranian people that will die in this war than you. All you do is repeat the talking points of the Trump administration. I've seen this all before, the Iraq war broke peoples brains in exactly the same way, nobody learned anything at all.
Oh these poor Iranians need saviors, they don’t know what’s good for them. We know better. They don’t learn.
Don’t you see any similarity between what you say and any colonial. And my brain is broken?
Let me put it in a way that’s easy to comprehend for you. War is bad and Iranian government is as much responsible for this war as the US. I don’t understand how this is so triggering for some.
edit.
> Evidently I care more about the hundreds of thousands of Iranian people that will die in this war than you.
Did you care equally when thousands of Iranians were massacred in the streets by the government or the “care” activates only when convenient?
> Oh these poor Iranians need saviors, they don’t know what’s good for them. We know better. They don’t learn.
I'm anti-interventionism, you can't seriously reframe that into western chauvinism.
> War is bad and Iranian government is as much responsible for this war as the US. I don’t understand how this is so triggering for some.
Because its just not true, there would be no war without the US and Israel starting it, PERIOD. It's triggering because you could've said exactly the same thing about the Iraq war, its always the same disaster and people never listen or learn anything, that's why its frustrating.
> there would be no war without the US and Israel starting it, PERIOD.
“there would be no war without Hamas starting it, PERIOD.”
See how dishonest and ignorant that sounds?
For everyone else reading this thread as Iran being bombed: In 47 years of constant confrontation, islamic regime has not built one fucking bomb shelter for its people for these days. Let that sink in. Don’t believe these people who suddenly start to care about Iranian lives by taking the regime’s side and also don’t believe US officials when they say they do all these for our freedom.
> For a Persian you have very US republican boomer speaking patterns.
Most Persians I know will support just about anyone who will go against the regime, there were huge protests all over the world recently by the Iranian diaspora calling for the regime to be destroyed after tens of thousands of protesters were murdered by the regime all over Iran.
I presume its just an Iranian living in the west? Just look at the Miami Cubans cheering on the total energy blockade killing Cuba right now, its not entirely unusual for immigrants to sound like US republican boomers sadly.
'productive talks and reasonable progress' is what diplomats almost always say in negotiations in order to maintain a reasonable atmosphere for possible further negotiations, this is not rocket science.
They also said the US demands are completely unreasonable, which you conveniently left out.
TL;DR Iran wants essentially symbolic enrichment so they could save face domestically, the US wants it to limit the range of its missiles so they could not reach Israel when Israel attacks.
I want to avoid linking particular sources because I know it's easy to call this or that biased etc. but it's easy to look up even in Israeli sources.
Iran shortening the range of its missiles to the point where they can no longer reach Israel is what Iran giving up all its offensive capabilities means given that the missile threat is the only meaningful response Iran can have to a preemptive Israeli attack.
That's not the point. The point is that the attacks on Iran are not about the nuclear weapons. Iran entered the JCPOA and complied with it, it had completely suspended any nuclear weapons program. But that didn't matter for Israel and their sycophants in US foreign policy, because for them the nuclear weapons program is at best only one part of the problem. Their real problem is that Iran is an independent state in the region that refuses to accept Israel's occupation of Gaza, the West Bank, and parts of Lebanon, and that refuses to comply with US policies more broadly.
Overall the goal is not to stop Iran's nuclear program, though that is part of it. The goal would be to install a government in Iran that is friendly to Israel and the USA, or, failing that, to completely destroy their economy and defense such that they effectively can't act outside their own borders.
> The wall extends across the so-called Blue Line and has made “more than 4,000 square metres [43,055sq feet] of Lebanese territory inaccessible to the Lebanese people”
So you're saying Israel's occupation of Lebanon amounts to 4,000 square metres? About the area of an athletics track, I guess? (Not counting the bit inside the athletics track.)
How much land area, exactly, is another nation allowed to seize by force before it becomes unacceptable to you? It obviously is not that much given the tone of your message.
That's not the question I'm interested in. The question I'm interested in is whether it's correct to claim that Israel occupies "parts of Lebanon", particularly in the context in which the claim was made, next to the claim that it occupies Gaza and the West Bank.
The goalpost is "Israel's occupation of ... parts of Lebanon". Do you agree with
tsimionescu that Israel occupies parts of Lebanon? Can you back that up?
> In October, UNIFIL peacekeepers conducted a geospatial survey of a concrete T-wall erected by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) southwest of Yaroun. The survey confirmed that the wall crossed the Blue Line, rendering more than 4,000 square metres of Lebanese territory inaccessible to the Lebanese people.
Right, OK, I guess if you're complaining about some land about the area of an athletics running track then you are technically correct. I'm not sure that's what people would have understood by tsimonescu's original claim that Israel is occupying parts of Lebanon.
And what exactly is Israel doing there, on that land the size of an athletics track? Something very nefarious?
How much land area, exactly, is another nation allowed to seize by force before it becomes unacceptable to you? It obviously is not that much given the tone of your message.
The south. It's not a real occupation like the west bank, it's more of a 'raid and pillage' thing. No rape reported yet, so it isn't at all like the West Bank.
there are many reasons to do nuclear research beyond medicine, for batteries like the ones powering the voyager space craft, nuclear reactors come in a wide variety of configurations, and many of them actualy produce more radioactive elements that then need to be managed.
60% is nothing,80% is nothing, it needs to be 93%++, and LOTS of it to build a bomb, and given the number of bombs already arrayed around Iran, they would need 100's
and all the infrastructure to become a credible threat , for which they plainly dont have the money to afford.
The wildly unpopular leaders going after Iran need a scapegoat, or rather a continious supply of scapegoats, but have failed to recognise that the world is moving past them.
60% is actually very close to 93%. To go from natural uranium (<1% U235) to 60% represents the vast majority of the effort. From 60% to 93% is actually quite quick; most of the material is already U235. And they already have enough to build maybe a dozen bombs.
They also have (had?) a very active ballistic missile program, and have conducted implosion experiments.
The constellation of evidence is quite clear: Iran is a threshold nuclear state with all the pieces necessary to credibly threaten the region (and soon the US homeland) with nuclear weapons.
We've gone from, "The amazing Islamic Republic of Iran isn't even capable of building deliverable nuclear weapons and they have lots of peaceful reasons to do enrichment to 60%!" to "Yeah OK, they are capable and they are indeed enriching Uranium for their weapons program--hey, look over here! USA and Israel!!!"
So they have medical grade uranium facility under a mountain? If that’s all they need, wouldn’t it be easier to just purchase it from a third party instead of investing billions of dollars hiding from Israel?
They have a military base under a mountain, not a uranium enrichment facility.
Building military defenses against crazed, genocidal, racial supremacists who routinely fire missiles at your country seems more like sensible forward planning to me rather than evidence of a guilty conscience.
It was Trump who cancelled to JCPOA. Also, sending Witkoff and Kushner as negotiators is already an obvious sign the US is dishonest about preventing conflicts through diplomacy, otherwise they would send experienced diplomats. It is really the US Epstein Class Deep State government to blame here.
They could have named the DOD the "Department Of Peace", instead they called it the "Department Of War", showing their true face and trajectory.
At this point it is really the people of the US to rise up and implement a Regime Change from within to change things for the better.
My friend, that's been SOP from the beginning [1]. The question you have to ask is whether the US actually respects the other parties to the agreement.
Somehow world will close eyes again ... Somehow we need to bring back moral standards that we all have deep in ourselves and screw this money world me all made together... I dont have answers or ideas how but this is just nonsense
US has been always playing god, cunning manipulations all over the world. Most of the Europe was silent until recently when Greenland under threat. US benefits from every war either oil, rare metals, trade, weapons, there is always an agenda even though they are not directly involved.
I hope you’re right but not too confident that will be the case. I wish EU leadership wouldn’t be as spineless as it is. I’m afraid they will accept any opportunity to make things feel as if they are back to the old normal if they are given the opportunity. And that would of course backfire, but long term thinking hasn’t been our strength over the past 3 decades or so…
Or you can blame Israel and Zionists lobbying the governments and media that radicals will crawl out under everyone's beds. (PS: it started before Libya)
The US didn't start the Lybia thing, France (and particularly Sarkozy) did, and the US felt obligated to follow up. In Hillary leaked emails, you can read about it. The CIA basically saying 'the successor France want is X, let's try to put our choice as the leader of the next Lybia instead', and a week later, the french/DGSE candidate for Khadafi succession died.
Lybia was 100% a French war the US took over. Sarkozy's subordinates were extremely close to the Lybia regime that helped illegally finance his presidential election, at least according to French judges, so it was also also a very political war.
"This war like the next war, is the war to end all wars"
- David LLoyd George, c.1916
The first wars were fought between tribes and then later between kingddoms for power/minor differences and trying to increase influence and alliances. Religion and race and many other discriminating factors are used for both sides to get support of the people, the people who are actually gonna carry the rifle and risk their lives and lose it, this drives the next war to redeem the losses of the first one, to take revenge.
This then creates a community which dislikes the other community and now we are here.
We do not like to be robbed of an enemy; we want someone to have when we suffer. … If so-and-so’s wickedness is the sole cause of our misery, let us punish so-and-so and we shall be happy. The supreme example of this kind of political thought was the Treaty of Versailles. Yet most people are only seeking some new scapegoat to replace the Germans.
- Bertrand Russel in Skeptical Essays.
Humanity has had a history written with bloodshed but the problem right now seems to me that we don't know how to write future, we lack a vision for other prospects, it seems to me that we jump into the newest Hype on the block and its all so wishy-washy. Contrary to people saying its a western issue, I think its an whole world issue, its just that the west is particularly impacted by it.
Has there been a desensitization in things in recent years?
I know of atleast one leader (King Kaniska) who fought for land (Modern day Orrisa) and won and then saw the bloodshed and screams on the ground and decided to not repeat it and I think he spent later of his life trying to promote peace.
I am sure that there must be other leaders in the history of past as well but perhaps its the problem of history as well which can sometimes glorify wars.
I think the biggest problem right now is being noise. We have created machines so large that humans have lost dignity and are treated unfairly at scale in terms of Renting places at scale owned by shell companies who'd rather have it empty than give you affordable housing. Prices seem to be increasing and I don't think modern social media helps in giving people dignity quite the opposite at times and it's very likely someone is reading this who may have contributed to making the machine.
With this being a political thread, I see comments from both sides[0], I don't think I have too much to add politically to the discussion but perhaps I just wanted to treat out that its best we treat each other with dignity in this thread and in general because I do believe that's the only thing we can do which can bring change. It's gonna be extremely hard for people to treat others with dignity while taking sides which talk about wars killing people, but I don't know what else to say. Iranian censorship for its people but I am not sure if the current idea of America brings me thinking of liberation. One can wish for pure democracies in such regions but its gonna be extremely hard and even grass-roots movements of these can be shut down by intrusive forces whether foreign or govt itself and given that the region is extremely shaky relying on oil which can be extracted from ground leading to a less dependence on people themselves for Iranian govt.s being the reason why they can be so censoring. They have shown enough power to fight massive protests but as I said earlier, the current picture of America don't exactly give me the idea of bringing pure democracy in the region either.
My prayers to the Iranian people who are stuck between a rock and tough spot.
(there are no sides, its a circle, a circle of people who start wars and the people who fight wars)
Speaking of markets... Polymarket was trading yes on this happening at quite interesting odds, "yes" was trading at around 30¢ or better over the next few days just a few hours ago...
I was quite surprised to see it that low... and also to find it is inaccessible for trading if a US national. Just looking at the platform it seems predominantly US driven so I gather many people are willfully attempting to breach the ToS (and probably lie to the IRS) when using it...
I can't help but think that all this shit is because Netanyahu really wants to put off more court hearings on his lame ass corruption charges. I really can't wait for him and his cronies (in Israel, and the West) to be brought to justice.
Without having to wait for the history books to do their thing.
His court appearance are continuing as scheduled, twice a week, for the last year. except for some specific incidents where he had to leave of cancel due to running a state.
No matter what you think, there is no way for him to avoid these hearings
Great, for those minor charges of accepting what, something like 150k Eur in gifts. As opposed to life in prison for genocide, which he clearly and absolutely deserves.
Go ahead, defend one of the most despicable humans alive this very day. I can't imagine what's going on in your mind. Maybe a combination of Attent and koolaid?
While Netanyahu definitely deserves that, don't expect anything to change for the better in Israeli foreign policy if he gets deposed and tried. Israeli politicians have become radicalized to a level that is hard to imagine from a European or US perspective.
Even the leader of the "left wing" opposition has recently explicitly stated that Israel was gifted the entire region from the Euphrates to the Nile by God, so they would have a right to own the entire region, but that this must be balanced by security concerns and tactical realities. This happened in response to the US ambassador's explicit public remarks in the Tucker Carlson interview that also asserted Israel's God-given right to the entire region. Note that this region, from the Euphrates to the Nile, includes about half of Irak, parts of Syria, most of Lebanon, parts of Saudi Arabia, and of Egypt.
The thing is, as sudden as this seems to the general public, this is something that takes months of planning. Having served in the Navy for eight years, I know that this kind of thing doesn't necessarily happen overnight. That doesn't mean it _couldn't_. The US military certainly does have the ability to plan a strike very quickly.
But, most likely, this was planned behind closed doors. Based on the reports, I bet this was probably planned shortly after Trump took office. It just so happens that it's a good distraction from the Epstein files.
I hate the direction this country's government is taking. It sucks. I just want to leave at some point. I don't want my family to grow up here anymore.
Of course there was a military plan for this since months, but that does not mean that plan was surely to be executed. (A likely option I assume)
What I find worrying is the standard tactic seems to be to do negotiations, let the other side assume there is hope for a other solution - and then attack hard all of a sudden. Already the second time. It might be effective short term, but it erodes what is left of trust negotiating with the US.
This one isn't all bad. From Trump's recent speech:
>Finally, to the great proud people of Iran, I say tonight that the hour of your freedom is at hand
It may not work but it's not a bad objective. My mum in the UK is a Bahai and a lot of those are refugees from Iran because they say be nice and tolerant and the Iranian government imprisons or kills them for so doing. Blasphemy etc. The are not a good lot.
[T]he War Department will not be distracted by democracy building interventionism, undefined wars, regime change, climate change, woke moralizing and feckless nation building.
- Pete Hegseth, December 6, 2025[1]
Trump launching bunker-busters on his midterm chances. Which depending on how bad it goes, potentially means impeachment and prison. Whatever it is the Israelis have on him, it must be good.
Works out great for Netanyahu though as is customary. He can be PM for a while longer and stave off his own impending trial and imprisonment. If this goes well for Israel, he might even get that pardon that Trump campaigned for tirelessly.
Not a chance. He hasn't even got the strength in his convictions to do that. Trump is just an opportunist, he'd go down like Jerry Lundegard at the end of Fargo.
I find the nuclear motivation an excuse. I mean, enrichment plants or not, if Iran wants a few nukes I am pretty sure that Russia would part with some enriched material and smuggle it pretty easily to Iran.
My theory is that Israel has dirt (Epstein files maybe) on Trump and holds him by the balls. The second idea is that this is an obfuscation campaign to have the public opinion forget about Epstein, the state of the real economy, the falling approval rates, or all of the above.
What makes you think Trump is not interested in this himself they just offered him hotels and land. Him getting blackmailed is I feel a lot of people that have voted for him are using as a coping mechanism.
The attack on Iran proves the point just like Russia attacking Ukraine if you want to protect your territories you need nuclear weapons. Canada, Greenland and countries in South America should also look to acquire nuclear weapons as once they are done with Iran you will be the next.
What a gift to the deeply unpopular Iranian regime. Nothing galvanizes support for whatever-you-have more than an external threat.
Think about it. If someone actually bombed or invaded the continental US you'd have woke libs cheering for Donald Trump.
The Iranian regime may fall, but it'll be like Iraq. We'll get something like ISIS out of it, or worse, and the place will be a complete basketcase of civil war for 25+ years. Or we'll be there for 25 years in another "forever war." Bravo.
>“Think about it. If someone actually bombed or invaded the continental US you'd have woke libs cheering for Donald Trump”
I think this is a scenario Steven miller fantasizes about while playing with action figures but that’s the closest it gets to being real.
Sure derogatory terms for liberals, as you term the left, would support the armed forces if China invaded hawaii but expecting them to also support Trump is fantasy. Like supporting America and supporting Donald Trump are entirely different matters and usually divergent.
most liberals do not support the assassination of politicians. after the guy got killed, there was a massive search on social media where right wingers were looking for anyone who mocked him, and they got like a handful of people.
The Iranian people overthrow their government and establish what they want?
My point is that an outside force coming in will help the current regime and/or the ideas behind it. Even if the current regime falls, democratic or pro-Western ideas in Iran will be seen as aligned with the invading force and rejected by many people who might otherwise be open to them.
Is there anyone who likes being invaded by a foreign power, ever?
Things were starting to come undone naturally then we decided to 3rd party the whole thing
Do you think the people fighting ICE in the streets of Minneapolis would welcome a joint Chinese+North Korean decapitation strike on Washington and cruise missiles flying over Portland?
>Do you have any better ideas or is it your position that evil dictators get to rule forever?
If president Trump doesn't declare martial law, start a civil war, military coup or change the constitution of the USA, he will stop ruling in 3 years. We can wait that long.
One of the main reasons Iraq is like Iraq is the Iranian meddling and their proxy organizations which operate in Iraq with impunity. The Iraqi government is entirely subservient to the Iranians.
As the recent wave of protests in Iran came after the 12 days where Iranian regime was dealt a massive blow, I think your analysis is wrong. Iranians consider this an opportunity. Also, the scale of violence unleashed on the Iranian public by the regime is staggering; it’s not about the regime being simply “unpopular”.
US president can be democrat or republican, republicans can control the Senate or the House, or the democrats can control the Senate or the House - regardless of who is in power, Israel's interests by US are always met. US can wreck havoc on close relations and ties with Europe, Canada, etc. - but relation to Israel never changes. You can oblivious to all this, but the truth is: Israel de facto controls the US.
Trump is indeed a peace president. He is shutting down the middle east PVP server. Iran has been attacking everyone for 47 years. That era is coming to an end. It's time to make Iran great again.
Classic playbook. This war will last the next three years. Trump admin will leak information and let Iranian cells in US cause terrorism, giving them the excuse to install domestic mass surveillance locally. They'll use that as a means to stay in power.
It kind of reveals Trump as a big liar. Not that this is a surprise, but even in his own self-image he can no longer try to shift the blame to others. Now he committed to war until regime change occurs.
What an utter betrayal of no war by DJT. This is the final straw. Era of Trump is dead, we are back to neoconservative era. I guess Adelsons are too hard to say no to.
Citizens United is an existential threat for USA. You cannot have Israeli-American dual citizens pouring $200 million dollars in elections. and that’s just her alone. This is simply not sustainable.
Ideally we would completely restructure the government to have multimember districts and change the Senate.
Within the current structure, we need to implement ranked/scored voting to break the two party system and the implied complete control it has over our government. It's so much easier for big money to control the narrative, control the candidates, and play off extreme polar politics when the voting system makes people choose the "lesser of two evils".
Were I king for a day in the US, and could only do one thing to help America, changing our voting system to some kind of rank/scored system would be it. Ending gerrymandering and Citizens United are also important but honestly less so than this.
Exactly what part of my statement was dog whistling? Can you stop throwing around this serious accusation of antisemitism without any attempt to substantiate your claim?
Making a big deal out of Israelis—especially wealthy ones—having dual citizenship is a classic antisemitic tactic, used to sow the idea that they aren't "real Americans" or their primary loyalty is to another country.
Also: yes, Citizens United is a big problem. But phrasing your comment as if the primary problem with it is "Israeli-American dual citizens" pouring millions of dollars into politics is perpetuating the antisemitic ideas that a) all or most Jews are wealthy, and b) Jews are controlling our country/the world.
Whether or not you meant it as antisemitic, it played directly and very clearly into multiple antisemitic tropes that are frequently used to try to smear and harm Jewish people.
I brought up Israeli-American donors because that’s what is relevant in the context of the story we’re discussing. We are talking about a war many right wing Israelis wanted for decades. If it were a general discussion about Citizens United and I focused on lobbying from only this group, perhaps your argument would have carried water.
Anyway, here’s Trump himself detailing the extraordinary access to White House this lobbying bought Adelsons:
It’s still pretty unclear how in the US is planning to go. For example, manifold still rates the chance that Iran’s regime falls this year at 46%, which should be a given if the US put boots on the ground. https://manifold.markets/SaviorofPlant/will-irans-regime-fal...
A large proportion of the software that runs HN exists to detect inorganic activity. It's quite obvious to us when significant numbers of comments are made in support of a particular agenda by new accounts or old accounts without regular, normal participation on HN.
Also, it's against the guidelines to allege or speculate about astroturfing (as is anything that is tangential to the primary topic), but we welcome emails (hn@ycombinator.com) from anyone who notices anything that seems suspect, and we're happy to investigate.
I used to report quite a number of political/ideological-only accounts to mods through email. They're explicitly against the single purpose account rule. They usually got banned or at least warned.
Over the past year or two I reported a number of accounts that are basically pro-Israel-only, they post a ton of comments to any Israel-related thread and either nothing else or very little of anything else. Mods refuse to ban or even warn them, apparently because emotions run high, there are too many of them and there's priority in punishing the most egregious content so relatively mild ones get a pass, and if mods are being accused of being-antisemitic and they ban a bunch of these they would reinforce the image, etc. These are from memory and not exact quotes.
I don't buy it, and I've stopped reporting things to mods. (To be abundantly clear, anti-Israel-only accounts should 100% be banned too, but at least I haven't noticed as many as them. Any other kind of politics-only account should be purged too if the rules are to be believed.)
Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, brigading, foreign agents, and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about abuse, email hn@ycombinator.com and we'll look at the data.
People on both sides of any topic are welcome to participate here and express their points of view, as long as they respect the guidelines. If you see users who "police it against honest reporting about their crimes", you should email us to point it out, as the guidelines ask.
Making sweeping claims like this without including any links so we can know what you're talking about serves only to poison HN.
That would suggest they respond to claims with counter arguments, as opposed to what they really do which is flag everything they don’t want people to see
WTF? You cannot comment like this on HN, no matter who you are replying to or what it's about.
HN is only a place where people want to participate because others make the effort to raise the standards rather than drag them down. Please show a sincere intent to treat this community and its guidelines with respect if you want to keep participating here.
Do keep in mind that basically every single Israeli goes through military training, which includes training in psychological counter-warfare (hasbara). Even the 'cool' Israelis you know in real life are spies at the beckon-and-call of Israel 24/7.
What I'm trying to say is that this is an intentional part of their strategy. They know what they're doing.
They probably have a small detachment assigned to every popular-ish website. For the long tail, they have bot farms.
What does Zionist actually mean when Israel as a Jewish State has existed for 77 years and seems likely to exist for at least as long. I'm genuinely asking here. People use the word all the time and I just don't understand what they are trying to say.
If you live in the USA you are being incredibly hypocritical as the land was stolen from the Native Americans.
Approximately 900,000 Jews migrated, fled, or were expelled from Muslim-majority countries throughout Africa and Asia in the 20th century, primarily as a consequence of the establishment of the State of Israel. Most migrated to Israel. Do they go back to the Arab countries that kicked them out?
As a person indigenous to the Americas, I know very well that this land was stolen and I fully support the land back movement.
Israel replicated the very worst of the genocide of Indigenous Americans in the modern day and continues to do so. Zionism will fall and Israel will go the way of Nazi Germany.
Since Oct 7 2023 Israel has very effectively destroyed Hamas, Hezbollah, and now Iran. They have an incredibly effective military and are VERY strongly motivated because they know that losing means death. Israel is no more likely to fall than the US gives back all land to the Natives.
The entire world has become aware of the true nature of Zionism. Once the propagandized boomers are gone, so will be Israel. Also, considering that rockets are currently raining down on Israel, I don't know how you can claim that they have effectively beat Iran.
Can you explain to me exactly how you predict Israel will "be gone"? And where will all the current population move to? Why would these countries accept millions of people? I don't think you can actually answer these questions because this is a fantasy.
So I don’t have a dog in this fight but if someone came to my house and tried to kill and evict me and posted up in the living room and had to defend against my attacks to reclaim my living room, the logical solution is for them to leave my living room regardless of how long they’ve been squatting there. No need for anybody to die.
I'm in the US, and the this type of histrionic rhetoric no longer flies with us. It's fully up to the Palestinians on what they do with the Zionists, I support their sovereignty 100%.
"I would replace Israel with Palestine and I would have the current population return to their countries of origin." Is extremely "histrionic". You are actually advocating for a genocide against Israel.
We need you to stop with this style of commenting, or we'll have to ban the account. HN is for curious conversation, not for this kind of ideological battle and inflammatory rhetoric. We want this to be a place where difficult topics can be discussed among people with different views. This kind of belligerence is not the way to discuss difficult topics. The overall effect of your style of commenting is to poison HN, and we have to ban accounts that do that.
Please read the guidelines and show a sincere intent to observe them if you want to participate here.
Even if Israeli Jews whose ancestors once lived in Poland were interested in immigrating to Poland, where 90% of Jews were murdered, Poland has not offered them citizenship. Would you like them to disappear?
Do you apply the same logic to all the immigrants from Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt, etc.? Do you categorically oppose all immigration, or only when it's Jewish families?
You can't characterize other HN users as "evil", no matter who it is or what they've written. Please consider stepping away from HN for a while, rather than continuing to post like this. We have to ban accounts that continue posting like this.
Edit: we've banned the account for outright calling that user "evil" in another comment. We can't let that go without consequence. If you want to keep using HN, you can email us and demonstrate a sincere intention to use HN as intended in future.
You also mostly talk about Israel (only from an Israeli perspective). I thought for sure that you were talking about Zionist brigading, since that's so obvious on this (and most) sites.
With things like Openclaw it’s kind of trivial to game forums now. You just have to tell an agent to “post arguments for/against this perspective on this forum.” Give it a few talking points to include if you want to get specific and let it run. Specify the tone so it sounds realistic. It’s literally going to do everything else essentially forever or until you run out of tokens. Comments in a forum are dirt cheap so it’s also going to be very cheap.
Youd have to do a lot of work to make sure it's only a few short sentences, non-specific, and ultra-quippy though.
I mean I'm sure it can be done but if you ask an LLM to produce comment reply without more instruction it's going to write something a lot more thoughtful, respectful, and substantive than a forum user would.
Not necessarily I see these green handles that just seem to pop up out of nowhere and they always have characteristically triggering/cynical tone to them, which usually triggers some type of reaction
Could be that these are being farmed but at a state level it might be easier to outright purchase aged accounts
What are the chances that HN is getting astroturfed these days?
Happens all day every day. There are many AI agents starting discussions and replying to comments. This is how The Crappening started on 4chan. Some of them are just future grifters. Some are training AI (I have replied to a few for fun). Some are propaganda bots. Those running the bots will reply with something equiv to Errrm Proof?? when called out. Without root I can not empirically prove it and the botters know that.
I predict about 2 years before the site will have more AI noise than real people. I have no idea what can be done about it aside from tracking the bots and reporting them via email to Daniel and I don't know what he could or would do. HN has always been very hands off which is mostly good but not for this scenario. If nothing is done it will just be bots grifting and AstroTurfing one another to the benefit of Google SEO and most of the humans would eventually go elsewhere with exception of some die-hards that refuse to recognize the situation.
Anonymous internet forums will very likely die out if inference gets another order of magnitude cheaper.
The only solutions are (1) private forums, (2) strict verification or maybe (3) some sort of "web of trust" thing, if someone manages to make it user friendly and not suck.
I agree and my bet is on private and semi-private (invite only) forums making a come back. It is so much easier nowadays with so many Ansible playbooks and Dockerfiles to automate things.
My nickname on here would at least suggest so. I think Grok is the closest option since they were working on making a snarky insulting version of their bot. Tame that down a bit and one could get the personality of Bender. [1]
In my opinion it would be mostly a ghost town if it requires money for something that was free. It would probably have to be more like a n invite-only semi-private forum. An example would be lobsters. [1] Not sayin' that's perfect, just an example. One can always try it and see what comes of it.
Your account, while 10 years old, only has comments from the past year. It is becoming very hard to tell what accounts are real and which are fake. Social proof of account activity pre-llm (usable) could be a very important thing in the future.
It's when people (or bots) acting in bad faith make a lot of noise to make it seem like there is a strong support for some (usually bad) position. It' a play on the term "grassroots". Fake grassroots=astroturfing
At this point, lines have been drawn. In conservative land, everything conservative is good, everything liberal is bad. So the only sane position to take is the complete opposite.
For example, if you see someone self proclaimed liberal being critical of liberals, that person is probably a conservative or its a conservative bot.
Im saying political polarization needs to happen on the liberal side because its about 8 years behind conservatives on that front. When Trump showed up, no matter how much other conservatives disagreed with him - everyone got behind in rank and file. Meanwhile, the left purity checks each other all the time.
So if you are a democrat, and you want to make change, you need to behave exactly like conservatives do. Elections are decided by vibes, he who can attract the biggest social following through whatever means, wins.
That's not totally true when it comes to Zionism though. Much of the left and the right are united against Zionism. It's the older center liberals and right that are united in being pro-Zionism.
I dunno if you are a bot, but in case you are not, I hope you realize that Palestine stuff is basically controlled opposition. All the extreme left wing people that happen to be so pro Palestine are basically all sponsored by right wing to peddle propaganda and normalize stuff like Oct 7 so that the right can point to them and be like "look the liberals are crazy".
Its a propaganda machine that works very well to target the very impressionable people out there. I mean, students are going to protests and destroying their futures by getting arrested to show support of Palestinians, who would absolutely stone them to death if they found out that any of them smoked weed, and even more so for the lbgtq students for simply being gay.
So really, Israel vs Palestine shouldn't be an issue at all if you believe in actual change.
Brainwashed? No I just don't want my government blackmailed by pedophilia so that my tax dollars are used to commit genocide all in the name of Jewish supremacy. It's incredible that Zionists think people can't see reality for themselves. I guess you guys got used to the boomers eating it hook, line and sinker. People who haven't been raised on mainstream media will never accept such blatant lies and gaslighting.
If you are sincere about contributing positively to the healthy functioning of this site, you will include evidence when you make a claim like this. If "Dan G has said" something like this, you will be able to share a link to a comment in which he said it. It's one of the most basic heuristics of moderating HN that when people make such claims without including a link, it is at best a highly exaggerated claim.
We turn off flags on politics-based articles when there is evidence of "significant new information". That's always been the case. The guidelines have never prohibited politics here; only the kind of repetitive day-to-day stories that make up most of the mainstream news.
If there seems like more politics on HN these days it is because politics and tech have become much more intertwined in the past 5-10 years. We don't like it, but we're no more able than King Canute to hold back the tides. HN is a part of the tech industry and a part of broader society, and it's neither viable nor moral to act as if major international stories about such grave topics as war are not happening.
I’m a Brit, married to an Iranian who still has a large family in Iran. I’ve got to witness first hand quite the opposite to what you describe, at least with the British mainstream media. With the exception of one religious aunt who is married to a military man, OP’s comment reflects the feeling of all the Iranian family and friends we know. And FWIW, I can point to Iran on a map, and I am not Mossad.
I don't claim to have the answers, and don't necessarily disagree with you. But that's how the Iranians I know insider Iran feel. That there was pain ahead of them with or without intervention.
Iran is on the other side of the Persian Gulf from Dubai, where Iranian tourists flock to buy Disney, Apple and other embargoed products without restrictions.
"This survey found notable signs of the "rally-round-the-flag effect" that many observers were commenting on at that time, including very positive appraisals of some aspects of their government’s and military’s performance during the war."
Oh bless, caring about civilians! How about the more than 16,000 children murdered and about 4000 child amputees. Yes, it's super reassuring that you care about civilians.
It's the Iranian people who will be the final judge of how much civilian death is acceptable.
If so many Iranian civilians die that this new revolution fails, then not only will regular Iranians continue to suffer, but all the deaths in the protests and these bombings will have been completely pointless.
If few enough Iranians are affected that they persist, then it may well be worth it.
Even HN is astroturfed to heck and filled with bots. The ratio of good faith informed dialog to Reddit like slop in these threads is wild. The old HN would never have such “obvious” black and white answers.
Can any Iran simps explain why the regime couldn't just agree to zero enrichment and cease its weekly ritual of organized mobs chanting:
> DEATH TO AMERICA
in the streets like blood-thirsty lunatics, something for which there was no equivalent in the US even after 9/11 (mobs chanting "Death to Muslims/Islam"), let alone doing so with governmental encouragement as happens in Iran?
Do they not realize how many Americans aren't pro-Israel and aren't invested enough in the Middle East and its politics, proxy wars, and human rights abuses to want the US to support Israel in military action against Iran, except for their nuclear ambitions, and regularly professed eternal hatred for our country?
We don't have many details regarding the negotiations, but early reports suggest that Iran agreed to the "no high-enrichment" line. It was the proxy support and MRBM standoff weaponry that caused the talks to collapse (allegedly).
Last I checked, no one dared to attack them before they had nukes because of China's promise (made good in 1950) to use their military to defend the regime in Pyongyang, and the massive array of conventional artillery pointing at Seoul just across the DMZ, where 25% of South Korea's population resides. Also: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47192139
That they'll never, in some capacity, attempt use them against the country they weekly collectively chant death to?
EDIT: thanks, dang, for the
> posting too fast
cooldown, for all of my four posts.
> perhaps we could negotiate a peace deal in which israel and iran both agree to give up nuclear weapons and allow for IAEA inspections
I completely agree with you. Isreal has better relations with its neighbors than its ever had, has destroyed Iran's proxies, and given its obvious conventional military supremacy and lack of regional nuclear-armed foes and US-backing, its nuclear stockpile is just a destabilizing force in the region, and them voluntarily disbanding it would earn them a great deal of goodwill and a moral highground.
The current Iranian regime has destruction of Israel as one of their main goals. Not the other way around. I’m sure if Iran will have less threatening leadership Isreal will not bother them.
Regarding the protests in the preceding week, while the iranian people probably had valid problems with their government, its so pbvious the actual scenes we saw in the news were orchestrated to manufacture consent. Its barely hidden anymore.
If you see a sudden uptick in protests in a country the US/isreal see as an enemy, you can bet its probably just the step in the playbook preceding military action
Protests have been happening in Iran for years and their frequency and depth increasing. Last one was “Woman life freedom” movement because the government killed a girl for bad hijab.
It’s not new, you just started paying attention now.
I know its not new, the iranian governemnt has always been cruel to dissidents. I guess my point is a sudden uptic in participants and media coverage of them is the indicator of manufactured consent
Ok I get your point. You mean the uptick in US/Western media coverage? I do agree and don’t think whatever we’re witnessing right now is for the good of the people of Iran!
Also the scale in which people were killed in Iran in such a short time (even if you believe the Iranian state media) was unprecedented. So there’s that too.
The protests were there before. Maybe you didn't know about them, but many people have been protesting. These are 40 day protests - iran funerals are 40 days afer the death, and 40 days ago iran killed tens of thousands of protesters who now are having funerals. (Iran deach culture is more complex than that, but for discussion the above works)
Iran: We are going to get nukes at any cost and wipe Israel and the United States off the face of the earth. It is our destiny.
Israel and the US: You serious?
Iran: Yes.
...
Iran, after being bombed to a slightly earlier point of the Stone Age than they've spent the past ~50 years: We are working hard trying to find the guy responsible for this.
FAFO, as they say. Meanwhile, literally the entire Middle East and the rest of the world besides Russia will be happy to see these clowns gone. Bon voyage.
And you think the US, now currently sliding into authoritarianism itself, will install an enlightened democracy upon the Iranians?
This is WW3 in slow motion. The goal is to takeover Eurasia and contain the Russian-Chinese alliance by eating away at the edges and removing all unaligned or hostile energy sources.
Remember how much toppling Sadam Hussein, killing a million Iraqis, rounding up and torturing thousands of random Iraqi civilians, destroying most of the country's vital infrastructure, and selling their oilfields to American companies at bargain prices helped Iraqis? It's going to be the same for Iran. There's going to be massive suffering.
But at the end of 1 milion deaths (est.) Iraqi oil was dollarized.
Saddam had been selling dollars for euros and talking about shifting his oil to other currencies for years. 2003 put an end to that - it was literally the first thing that was done by the provisional Govt. was to make sure all Iraqi oil was sold in dollars.
The Petrodollar was not in jeopardy anymore, and for the post-1971 system, that was essential. Same thing is now happening with Iran and Venezuela. The real goal is - China must not be allowed to have substantial sources of energy that are not priced in dollars.
Except not, the Iranian revolutionary system is very much designed around the desire to be able to rapidly replace people. The list of targets for a decapitation strike might just be way too long to be feasible.
It's the biggest military buildup since 2003. Kinda looks like they plan on overthrowing the regime. Which would be amazing for world peace considering Iran is building drones for Russia and supporting Hezbollah and Hamas. But we'll see...
Yeah -- it only took a world war, massive global alliances, and tens of millions of deaths. Also, I’m not sure how political and military competence from about a century ago has any relevance to today.
> 30,000 in 2 days - half the 2-year death toll of Gaza ; With no artillery , air-strikes or heavy weapons, without million-man armies facing off in pitched battles, without health system collapsing with 100s of thousands of injuries in 48 hours, photos or satellite imagery of mass graves and bodies littering the streets
A lot of them were armed as well based on the death toll for security forces. Again where is the evidence for all this. The Iranian government published the names and details for the 3000-odd death-toll they claimed. The 30,000 number is from diaspora, citing 'anonymous health and government officials' - Who all seem to be linked to Pahlavi, Israel and US-backed sources all trying to manufacture a case for the war they are now waging. If the real number is > 10x then giving names should be very easy for CIA and Mossad.
All this is just a excuse, when this whole war is about Israel's national security interest and hegemonic ambitions. The "negotiations" were entirely over the Nuclear program, ballistic program and proxy forces - The protestors, human rights, democracy none of it were even mentioned. Netanyahu didn't visit the White House 6 times over the last year to advocate for the protestors.
There's no way you can defend the Iranian leadership. Toppling them is not shameful, just like ousting Saddam Hussein was IMO reasonable. The problem is what happens afterwards.
I can vouch for people still there. I’m a Brit who married an Iranian who still has a large family in Iran. With the exception of one religious aunt who is married to a military man, all the Iranian family and friends we know have been hoping for intervention. We've had emotional messages from my wife’s cousin (a new mum) describing looking out of her apartment every night for the past month praying for planes overhead. Take that anecdata for what it’s worth.
1. Not everybody lives in the direct nearing of the bombing/conflict hotspot
2. They weren’t doing that great before anyway (because, you know, the islamic totalitarian theocratic dictatorship)
3. They haven’t been doing great at all lately (because, you know, protests and turmoil and the violent repression from the aforementioned islamic totalitarian theocratic dictatorship)
Agreed. I had an Iranian colleague also reach out who was ecstatic about this news. The hacker in me is curious to see how it all unfolds, as well as to see all the curious discussion that arises on this forum.
I think everyone should stop being so nervous. How many times have the U.S. and Israel hit Iran over the past two years?
And people still aren’t used to it? On Monday, the market might not even drop. In fact, a lot of people may want to buy the dip. Everyone hypes up the fear, the big players wait to scoop up bargains, and then what happens? Not only does it not fall, it rebounds instead.
How many times have we seen this script already?
And Iran? Every single time it’s just performance art. I’m already sick of watching it.
Besides, Iran has been heavily sanctioned and blocked by the U.S. and Israel for so many years that its impact on the global economy is basically zero. So what the hell is there to dump over?
Oil prices? Venezuela’s situation has already been dealt with. The U.S. can produce its own oil, Canada still has plenty of oil, and Russia is still selling at bargain-bin prices. Iran and the surrounding major oil-producing countries are barely even moving in sync, and there’s basically no real incentive for anything major to happen to oil. So why the hell would the market drop?
As for all this fearmongering, I’d say go harder. Seriously, make it as apocalyptic as possible, so my gold can moon, I can pick up cheap Taiwan stocks, and short crypto, so I can completely clean out all the people panicking in fear.
Iran is the 5th biggest oil producer in the world. Not only that, it can cut-off the strait of Hormuz which 5 of the top 10 oil producers ship their oil through, including Saudi Arabia which is the nr 1 exporter.
In earlier strikes Iran signaled it did not want to escalate. It warned US bases prior to its attack, and sent small symbolic strikes to pacify their base, while trying to de-escalate through all diplomatic channels.
This time it looks different, Israel/US have targetted their president and political (religious) leader. There is hardly a more existential threat you can imagine for the current regime, so it will do everything in its power to strike back. If you put someone with his back on the wall and start a firing squad, don't expect a non-response.
Beyond that it's the middle east, last time US tried regime change we had two decades of violence with 1m Iraqi's dead and ISIS rampaging in the region. It's a human catastrophe that people are worried about, not just stock markets. To come here and talk about your stocks is insane.
Israel and the US told Iran "Don't try to develop nukes or else." Iran tried to develop nukes and got bombed. Then Iran tried to develop nukes again.
PotUS told Iran "Don't shoot the protestors or else." Iran shot the protestors.
Iran chose to FAFO; "Or else" has now arrived.
I don't like Trump and based on past bad experiences I'm not sure it's wise for the US to start a war in the Middle East.
I feel sorry for the civilians caught in the middle, e.g. the ~50 Iranian schoolkids that ate a wayward bomb. People can legitimately criticize the US and Israel for that mistake, but if they do they need to also criticize Iran ~200 times harder for killing tens of thousands of protestors on purpose.
I don't agree with people who think this war is illegitimate or Iran isn't the bad guy here.
I still cannot understand what "Claud helping to conduct attacks" could possibly mean. Like, they asked an LLM to use tool calls to look up strategic info, maps, and military asset inventory and then write a plan for where to point the missiles? How is a text generator helpful here, whose job could it make meaningfully easier in the chain of command?
"Here is 10 petabytes of signals intelligences, you can run queries, give me the hierarchy of my enemy, the house address of anyone within 3 degrees of separation of their leadership or weapons industry, the next house address they're likely to be at if trying to flee my strikes, and the time they're all most likely to be there. Then schedule drone strikes on the houses."
I would not expect that prompt to work unless there's a fairly trivial query that can be crafted to give the right answer when run against the relevant datastore. If there is a query like that I would hope you have a guy on staff well-versed enough to know that and just run it himself.
Getting publicly kicked to the curb by the Trump admin mere hours before it starts another war is probably the best thing that could have happened to Anthropic. Not sure how well OpenAI's parachuting in is gonna look with hindsight. I have a feeling we won't have to wait that long to find out.
agreed. Although "starts another war" dismisses 50 years of history. Iran never stopped being at war with US and Israel and they clearly were never going to agree to a deal that left them without the nuclear capability to wipe both US and Israel off the map.
I can't name a single thing this administration has done well, or competently and this is no exception. Unless, of course, you count killing innocent people between military action, aid cuts and ICE.
Will not one of you try to steelman this decision? Or do you truly, fully believe the entire US government and intelligence complex, supported by roughly 50% of your compatriots, are warmongering baboons?
If assume the goal of the US administration is to really limit the weapons of mass destruction
then why the previous peacefull attempts were thrown out? I remember Iran agreed to limit the production or ivite the people to watch their actions, the US sanctions were even lifted in 2015. But then later reiplemented by the US for some reason.
unrelated to all of this, I don't understand what's the problem is with a country developing nuclear weapons. US can nuke Iran with ICBMs anyway if they try to use them?
Israël is threatened by Iran. Iran has been working on nukes. There have been negotiations but they haven't been definitive yet, and Iran has never been a trustworthy negotiating partner anyway. That is why this President ditched the last round of agreements.
That's the steelman. Reality is that half my compatriots are warmongering baboons.
I am saddened by your gullibility. Your first instinct is to trust this administration? Who has repeatedly showed utter contempt for the very idea of truth, the constitution, the rule of law, and science, merely because half of American voters are brainwashed?
This administration's arguments do not deserve to be steelmanned.
I think it's possible it's a good decision (As with most wars in the middle east, I think hubris is playing a heavy role and we're underestimating the risks involved) but I think I'm in the minority and this is _not_ supported by 50% of my compatriots.
I don't know if by 50% you're talking about left vs right, but I'm center left, and a decent number of center-left thought leaders support this action. I think the people who support this are a relatively narrow 25-30% of remaining neo(lib|con)s in the center, and the more left and the America First right crowd hate this. My guess would be loosely speaking Trump's base hates this more than the typical HN poster. Tucker Carlson for instance will be way more against this than anyone here.
Iran is a lesson to all: as soon as Israel or the US take a disliking to you you have to rush for nuclear weapons.
Iran has been the grown up in the room for well over a decade at this stage and it didn't matter one bit. You cannot appease Israel or the US because that don't want to be appeased, they want to bomb Iran into a lawless wasteland. They could have switched to a secular liberal democracy and it'd make no difference.
Don't know why you are being down voted. I mean Iran had a democracy that was toppled by the CIA when they tried to nationalise their resources in favour of a puppet dictator. If the US cared so much about human rights why not go invade Saudi Arabia.
I know someone whose clan was involved (still were when I last talked to him, before the US left Afghanistan). Of course the CIA/MI6 used local support, but they did have an impact on when, who and how. And on the power structure from 53 onwards.
Iran makes the drones that russia uses to attack Ukraine every day. Iran makes the rockets Houthis use to attack ships. Iran provides rockets andgunding to Hezbollah and Hamas. Iran is a terrorist state.
I don't understand. I was under the impression that this a tech site. Why is there so much politics on here? What is all the rage bait. Are these bots or people who have inject politics and rage bait into every single place. Whatever you think of the Israel/Palestine conflict, maybe there can be places or website where some of us just want tech articles and interests.
Same. And I don’t understand why you are being down ranked. The HN guideline specifically stated that political news are not welcome, yet, this is the post with most comments in the front page. I didn’t come to HN for this
Seems that they are behaving intelligently - pummeling the IRGC. If the IRGC fails the public will probably have a bit of small talk with the regime officials and functionaries while the regular army and police will probably look vague amused from the sides.
I recall someone (name escapes me at the moment) defining WW3 as ignition in 5 flashpoints between belligerent groupings: - Eastern Africa esp. Sudan, which we all nearly universally ignore - Israel Iran - Russia and a neighbor which we know today is Ukraine - Pakistan Afghanistan India - China Taiwan Plus Plus
Attributes that distinguish WW3 from previous world wars were IIRC: Contained conflagration, short targeted exchanges, probability of contamination low, material possibility of nuclear escalation. Case in point: North Korea developed nukes without being invaded, and now that they have nukes, other countries are watching and seeing that NK won't be invaded. What lesson do those other countries draw? And what of a world in which many potential belligerents hold nukes? Hiroshima weeps.
I'd like to add an important attribute here: The revolution will be live-streamed, more-or-less. And essentially none of us will know the truth, even the reasons. I predict this fact will not distress many people, such is the state of humanity.
So to the 7 or so decades of stability we and our ancestors enjoyed, here's looking at you, going down me. But Brettonwoods serves the present the least of any time since its creation. Case in point, w.r.t. eastern Africa, the geopolitical bounds of those ~4 countries seems likely meld to a degree. If we are indeed heading into WW3, I expect the world map to be redrawn afterwards, and the only lessons learned is how to win better in future.
And if we are, while disgruntled old geriatrics go at each others throats via their youthful proxies, I greatly prefer the nukes rust in peace.
Reminds me of Blaise Pascal's quote: 'All human evil comes from a single cause, man's inability to sit still in a room.' Aspiration, you gotta take care man, it just might kill ya.
His French is so simple and yet, incredibly beautiful and elegant, in a way that I am not even able to express in words. Only Voltaire compares.
"tout le malheur des hommes vient d’une seule chose, qui est de ne savoir pas demeurer en repos, dans une chambre." -- "All the woe of man comes from one single thing only: not knowing how to remain at rest, in a room"
In the same text, he follows with:
"Le roi est environné de gens qui ne pensent qu’à divertir le roi, et à l’empêcher de penser à lui. Car il est malheureux, tout roi qu’il est, s’il y pense."
"The king is surrounded by people who think only of amusing the king and preventing him from thinking about himself. For he is unhappy, though he be king, if he thinks about it."
[dead]
> Attributes that distinguish WW3 from previous world wars were IIRC
You're missing the commonalities, what defined world wars: the full might of industrial economies being dedicated to military campaigns.
World War II's theatres' were incoherent–the Axis interests in e.g. China and the Pacific had basically zero stragegic overlap with Europe and North Africa. (The only parties having to consider a unified theatre being the USSR and USA.) But the entire economic surplus of Europe, Asia and North America was basically dedicated to (or extracted towards) making things that were reasonably expected to be destroyed within the year.
British Empire was heavily involved in Europe, North Africa and South-East Asia. Events in India had great consequences on Europe
The USSR on the other hand barely had any involvement in the Pacific theatre, entering in August 1945.
The USSR had to carefully keep enough land forces in the Pacific region to deter a Japanese land invasion. (Remember that Japan controlled Manchukuo.) So, yes, the USSR had little involvement, and they had to be very careful to keep it from becoming an active front.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battles_of_Khalkhin_Gol (that was in 1939).
Fear of the USSR entering the war against them was also a deciding factor in Japan's surrender. More so than the atomic bombs.
> But the entire economic surplus of Europe, Asia and North America was basically dedicated to (or extracted towards) making things that were reasonably expected to be destroyed within the year.
This is no longer necessary to inflict the catastrophic destruction we're really referring to when talking about a hypothetical WWIII
Their argument is that, by definition, it can’t be a world war unless all economic surplus is dedicated to war purposes.
I tend to agree with both of you, and that by extension, we will never see another world war unless society as we know it collapses significantly.
I don't think you are using standard definitions.
> A world war is an international conflict that involves most or all of the world's major powers. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_war
> Total war is a type of warfare that mobilizes the totality of national resources to sustain war production, blurring the line between military and civilian activities and legitimate attacks on civilian targets as part of a war without restriction as to the combatants, territory or objectives involved. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_war
It does so happen that the two world wars were also total wars.
Well first off I think we were speaking colloquially. But secondly, I think unless certain powers cross some threshold where they’re undeniably engaging “total war”, they’ll use wishy-washy terms like “special military operation” (Russia) or “armed conflict”. That’s also not to mention proxy wars (Syria) or even non-violent acts of aggression against sovereignty (Hong Kong).
In other words, “total war” is a necessary ingredient for a “world war” these days or you’ll have all of these countries claiming they’re not actually at war.
Things have changed since I was a kid. We've gone from saturation bombing and dropping nukes as the big kahuna to being able to do point assassination strikes.
Topical the Israelis just killed Khamenei.
looks at Russia's economy
the "world" part of world war is also important. pretty much every economy involved was at least undergoing heavy handed rationing of goods, encouraging people to donate scrap metal, etc.
Russians are not under food rationing yet.
Here’s hoping they feel the war in Moscow and St Petersburg this year. A bit of rationing wouldn’t hurt them.
More than the war, they’ll feel the peace. More than 100% of the economic growth of the last few years has gone into war production, meaning the civilian economy has shrunk. When the weapons factories are scaled back the economy is going to hurt something fierce. Even Muscovites will notice.
This is why Putin can’t stop fighting. When the fighting stops Russia will face a reckoning. Better to postpone that day hoping that Europe runs out of steam.
ww2 history begs to differ. The USSR has seen massive economic growth in 1946-1950s.
That was a very different situation. The USSR was still catching up in industrialisation, and despite its huge losses still had vast reserves of labour in the countryside to tap. It was much more like the process of industrialisation in China that’s seen huge growth there over the last generation. Russia has already industrialised so it doesn’t have a catch-up growth opportunity in the same way. They are much more labour and resource constrained these days.
"still had vast reserves of labour in the countryside to tap"
There was a huge shortage of labor in the countryside after the war.
This labor was, pre-war, a bunch of poor, uneducated serfs (basically slaves). But leading up to WWII, they were transformed into educated, literate, laborers. Also the USSR had invested leading up to WW2 in agriculture outside Ukraine (since the Nazis controlled it).
So while there was less labor, they were far more productive labor thanks to post-revolution, post-WWI measures
So one person says, USSR was still catching up in industrialisation, the other one says, they were far more productive... what is it? The whole argument still feels far-fetched at the very least.
> This labor was, pre-war, a bunch of poor, uneducated serfs (basically slaves).
This is incorrect. Serfdom in Russian empire was abolished in 1861, long before the revolution. Peasant literacy rates, while still poor, had been gradually improving after that.
> Also the USSR had invested leading up to WW2 in agriculture outside Ukraine (since the Nazis controlled it).
What? Not only Ukraine was controlled by Bolsheviks at the start of WW2 its territories have also been extended with parts of Poland and Romania annexed by Soviets between the start of WW2 and the so-called "Great Patriotic" phase of the war.
The USSR's (well, Russia's) growth had begun before WW2, and it was in response to pre-WW1 Russian being severely underdeveloped. There was a ton of room for growth that started before WWII, and it continued unabated.
Basically, Russia up to WW2 had economic growth because it was "catching up" to the West. Industrialization was one place. Literacy was another. There was a huge effort to improve literacy after the Tsar was killed.
Finally, because the Nazis occupied Ukraine during WW2, Russia/the USSR had to develop other places during WW2 just to feed its people, which accelerated growth post-war.
These conditions do not exist today, I don't think. But this isn't my area of expertise. I just know that Russia was a feudalistic shithole until the Tsar was overthrown, and then they worked hard to turn the serfs into educated and literate people, right as they were forced by invasion to economically develop previously overlooked lands.
If you want a very pro-1% take on this, check out Anna Karenina. The "good guy" main character of the novel is a large landowner with a lot of serfs (read: slaves) whom he visits and instructs, based on latest science, how to farm better.
Same thing happened in Japan about a generation or two earlier. There's ar eason tiny, flyover Japan beat Russia in the Russo-Japanese war. Russia was totally backwards, even by "barely industrialized Japan" standards.
Another aspect of a WW3 is that people- pretty much ALL people everywhere- who have nothing to do with the war will find their lives threatened or completely changed by it.
I'm less concerned about nuclear escalation than about biological escalation.
It's quite hard to destroy the human world with nukes: you can only blow up big chunks of it, maybe take out enough power plants and supply chains to drop us into a multi-decade or multi-century dark age, or maybe cause a nuclear winter, although the actual risk of that is unclear.
Whereas a year into a major war a kid in his/her basement can release something that is functionally the end of the human species.
We currently have no real safeguards against this. If we ever have descendants, they'll think we were insane during this time period and they'll be right.
> Whereas a year into a major war a kid in his/her basement can release something that is functionally the end of the human species.
Urgh. "No tests, no prototypes".
Imagine trying to write "Hello, World" but there's no programming language. The compilation cycle takes a week. And you can't actually control where the program runs. And also the storage device will be destroyed by light, air, and other programs on your computer if you don't handle it just right.
It is very very clear when people with no molecular biology experience start talking about biology, because it's clear you all have no idea what any part of the process looks like.
Even the vaunted DNA synthesis machines...only synthesize DNA. Which will be completely destroyed if you so much as breathe at it the wrong way (in fact don't breathe on it at all). And that's like step 2, because step 1 is "grow up a candidate organism in sterile conditions, isolate and characterize it".
That stupid longtermism movement is god damn obsessed with this concept, and it's stunning how clueless they are.
It is so frustrating indeed reading about these wildly exaggerated biological claims.
The whole synthesis pipeline requires so much specific equipment and knowledge that at your kid in his/her basement would actually need a whole lab. By the way, good luck purchasing any consumable on sigma from your basement without accreditation. And I hope you have deep pockets because cell medium is expensive.
"Whereas a year into a major war a kid in his/her basement can release something that is functionally the end of the human species."
How?
If a a virus is so deadly, everything it touches dies soon, it would not spread quickly but die out. If it is very contagious .. but very, very slow incubation time, so it infects the whole world, before becoming a deadly disease ... then I would say it is far beyond the possibility of a basement workshop to remotely design anything like this. I doubt the professional state labs can create something to wipe out humanity. Dramatically disturb? For sure. Covid was not really deadly in comparison, but already problematic.
These are plenty of people worried about this. Just one example https://openai.com/index/preparing-for-future-ai-capabilitie...
This type of research requires experimentation (mostly failures) on extremely complex real-world equipment. Same with the nuclear weapons. AI being able to magically figure it out without experimental grounding is pure and absolute fantasy, used by companies like OpenAI and Anthropic as a justification for monopolizing AI R&D. In a sense it's not surprising this idea comes from rationalism-adjacent folks, as rationalism is mostly about the idea that experimentation is irrelevant and you can infer anything using just logic alone.
> In a sense it's not surprising this idea comes from rationalism-adjacent folks, as rationalism is mostly about the idea that experimentation is irrelevant and you can infer anything using just logic alone.
Yeah IIRC Yudkowski famously said something about a super intelligence could derive the theory of gravity correctly by seeing only three frames of a video depicting an apple falling from a tree. This is the same Less Wrong nonsense, rejecting how vital and irreplaceable experimentation is.
There's an infinite number of explanations for the location of an object in three equally time-spaced instances. Not to mention limitations of the measuring equipment itself.
There has been a lot of research into discovering new physics (starting by discovering old physics) since the last 5-6 years and it always require:
- A lot of high-quality data - Some careful design - (Not always) some external knowledge to guide the solutions
And this is using specialized NNs for physics, where you often know underlying equations. Kind of crazy that some people are so delusional about that.
Okay, I’m inclined to agree there.. but I can’t find the reference now, I also read that the worry is that the complexity required is coming down fast, and while maybe it’s not going to happen in a basement , there could be a small scale lab, not subject to rigorous certifications and checks that offers crisper as a service, and ai could be used to .. just perturb a protein a little bit so it doesn’t trigger some known virus black list, and people could just be ordering things online.
>rationalism is mostly about the idea that experimentation is irrelevant and you can infer anything using just logic alone.
Thanks for putting it the way you did. I didn't knew it was meant be that way, but it sort of confirms my suspicion that people who use the term 'rational' and 'logic' loosely often to dismiss an opposing view never really seek experimental results before having a point of view.
Viruses are perhaps the 3rd or 4th thing down the list of scary biological things people might make in their basement to end the human world.
> If a a virus is so deadly, everything it touches dies soon, it would not spread quickly but die out. If it is very contagious .. but very, very slow incubation time, so it infects the whole world, before becoming a deadly disease ..
This is a made up equilibrium that actually does not need to exist in nature.
Viruses and bacteria can in fact be both extremely, extremely contagious and extremely, extremely lethal.
> If a a virus is so deadly, everything it touches dies soon,
Trivially: you actually can have a virus that kills everything it touches not soon. Nothing in biology or chemistry or physics prevents it.
> Viruses and bacteria can in fact be both extremely, extremely contagious and extremely, extremely lethal.
Sure, but those two things would tend to work against it becoming a pandemic— unless it managed those two things but also kept its host healthy enough for long enough before becoming lethal to adequately spread it.
> unless it managed those two things but also kept its host healthy enough for long enough before becoming lethal to adequately spread it.
I am clearly referring to this specific scenario. There is nothing in chemistry or biology or physics that prevents it.
I looked into this once, it depends on how splashy the death is. A virus that made people explode instantly into a fine mist of airborne virus particles could be perfectly adequate for a pandemic (although holding off until help arrives might work even better).
"A virus that made people explode instantly into a fine mist of airborne virus particles could be perfectly adequate for a pandemic"
And what existing virus comes close to this trait?
I think we can safely assume that OP was picking a bit of a ridiculous hypothetical example to make a point that it’s possible for something to be deadly and transmissible, although in nature Baculovirus in Caterpillars has a similar mechanism (encourages their host to eat a lot, then climb to the top of a plant so when it turns to ooze it infects others) or cordyceps although both of these aren’t as highly transmissible as they hypothetical explode virus.
But the Black Death mixed high contagion and high mortality as an actual example that shows they aren’t mutually exclusive.
Oh, I would never say biological weapons are harmless, but the wiping out humanity claim I debated.
What? That's your second strawman in two comments.
Nobody said you claimed they were harmless. People are taking issue with your assertion that biological agents can be either contagious or lethal (not both), and therefore you discount its risk. This implied tradeoff between contagiousness and lethality simply is not enforced by anything in nature.
The natural emergence of a pathogen that's both highly contagious and highly lethal would be a much rarer event than the natural emergence of one that's either contagious or lethal, but we're talking about engineered pathogens. There is no reason to think that pathogens cannot be deliberately created that are both of those things.
None of you have seen ‘The Beauty’, I’m guessing.
No, but I have learned that sometimes there is a difference between fiction and reality.
Bet you’re fun at parties.
I do understand your sentiment. But also, this isn't a party
Disagree: Most people live in areas dependent on the supply chain. And when the supply chain gets disrupted they aren't going to go peacefully. And there will be enough mobility that areas that could be self-sufficient get hordes descending on them.
You'd like this book - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Second_After
Haven't read it, from what Wikipedia says it sounds quite optimistic. Maybe more realistic back when it was written. I also wonder at the President dying when Air Force One went in--there's good reason it's impossible to jump from civilian airliners, but I would be amazed if Air Force One lacked some means of emergency egress--I'm not talking ejection seats, just a door.
(I don't know too much about nuclear level situations so I can be obviously wrong perhaps but here's my take on it)
> supply chains to drop us into a multi-decade or multi-century dark age,or maybe cause a nuclear winter, although the actual risk of that is unclear.
It's defintiely gonna be a hard life if WW3 ever happens but I think with hydroponics and other advancement, a localized community can still have chances of making sense of things.
It definitely wouldn't be this life where we can eat almost anything but it won't be starvation either, hopefully.
For water, we might have to do reverse osmosis or boiling+condensing to remove radiation.
The biggest issue to me seems energy. Solar energy might be hard to get if nuclear storms are made over any region which I do think iirc can even stay till decades.
Temporarily Windmills and then primarily Hydroenergy is still possible tho but it might take some time to rebuild it if it got destroyed by Nuclear attack so energy to just produce food/water is possible but everything to me feels like it would be strictly rationed. You might have some spare energy for Radio.
I am not sure how food is gonna be distributed, perhaps a new system of work would be designed within community where community gives food and you give what the community might need to get work done.
I feel like though we are gonna slowly improve our Energy situations and as we do that, society can progress back to say a mathematician who can work on theorms which might require computers/energy and just computers in general back.
The quality of life would drop but I would consider tho that the people already in war-struck regions where they don't know if they are gonna be the next target of a messy war have their Quality of life significantly dropped as well.
Now the virus point is something that I don't exist similar to Lukan's comment tho.
There’s no chance a kit in a basement can produce a biological weapon that will be successful.
Oh? A lot of the old-style genetic coders got dumped on the market cheap. The sort of stuff a microbiologist could use to synthesize smallpox. The technique has been demonstrated, although on a harmless virus. The market has shifted to outsourcing to big companies (who carefully check every order against known dangers) that have much higher capital costs but much lower per-letter costs, but that didn't invalidate the old lab bench techniques.
Seeing what people can do with a home made wet lab on youtube, I’m not so sure
You’ve got me curious. Examples?
Thought Emporium is basically wizardry to me, https://youtube.com/@thethoughtemporium
Thank you for responding. This is so cool.
OMG, thank you so much. I watch Nile's wizardry with awe and joy, and this will be another level.
Thank you
> a biological weapon that will be successful
I think he meant one of these:
1) Biological agent, but not meant to be a weapon.
2) A biological weapon, but one that fails catastrophically.
Oh yeah?
https://theconversation.com/an-illegal-bioweapons-lab-was-fo...
https://abc30.com/post/illegal-reedley-biolab-connected-lab-...
Here's a paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.17154
Covid, ahem, could have been designed in a lab to be an "ideal" bioweapon. As far as viruses go it approximated just about the best bioweapon we could have made with current technology.
- very deadly
- asymptomatic spreading for a couple days
- spreads easy
- no tests/vaccine (early on)
It did kill a lot of people, that's for sure, and caused a huge disruption. But was far less disruptive, imo, than e.g. a nuke in multiple big cities would have been, even if the death toll was similar.
> very deadly
Covid wasn't "very deadly" at all.
The base variant killed millions of people. It wasn't the Black Death, exactly, but it was pretty dangrous.
Now, if you want something that will keep you up at night:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Npf-B5Av7aQ
It was too contagious and not nearly virulent enough to be an ideal bioweapon.
GP put "ideal" in inverted commas, and qualified with "best we could make with current technology". I doubt they disagree with you.
This paper puts some numbers around that, looking at death rates before a vaccine was available.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S120197122...
Without a vaccination, it killed 12.9% of people who were infected, killing mostly older people and people who had multiple pathologies (eg. hypertension).
That’s 12.9% of hospital inpatients. All estimates I’ve seen for infection fatality rate — that is, mortality rate among all those infected — place it around 1–2%
Something that contagious that kills ~13% of people infected is something I would argue is quite deadly.
Especially when half of adults in america are hypertensive.
It doesn’t kill 13% of people infected, only about 1%. Just look at the number of cases reported compared to the number of deaths. That paper was reporting 13% mortality rate among those admitted to the hospital, not among all those infected.
> It's quite hard to destroy the human world with nukes
what about bio weapons? smallpox in the americas, for an example of many at the page below.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_history_of_the_Indi...
Isn’t that their entire point?
yes, i think you're right that such was the point, and i misread it.
Smallpox, which the only remaining samples exists in a couple of secure facilities controled by superpowers for use making vaccinations in case they are wrong about their only being a few samples controled by superpowers. Everyone with an ounce of sense knows bioweapons infect both sides and nuetral parties who are no longer neutral once you infect them. It like mustard gas but worse no one other than suicidal terror groups want them and they dont have the facilities equipment samples or knowhow.
>Smallpox, which the only remaining samples exists in a couple of secure facilities controled by superpowers...
I used to believe that, too, until the Russians found a few vials in a random storage cabinet. The fact is we have no idea how many samples exist and where they all are.
Fortunately, we already know how to make a smallpox vaccine.
Not only that, but we have currently functioning distribution networks for pox vaccines. AIUI, the MPox vaccine is just a smallpox vaccine that happens to also work for MPox.
There are a lot of suicidal terror groups in the world
A good chunk of Christianity would turn around to bring about the rapture in a heartbeat if you let them. Death cults come in all shapes and sizes.
Yep! I count sects of Christianity among those groups and you're right that there are many more just waiting for the right situation and leader to really push them into full blown eschatology.
You mean the same smallpox that ran rampant in a world without vaccines and failed to destroy the world, and was still present while a humans fought a bunch of conventional wars?
Check your thinking. Korea currently has a DMZ dividing it from a war that never really ended and was fought to a stalemate. Their nuclear program didn’t result in military action because they currently have a gun to the head of every South Korean citizen and the backing of a large nuclear neighbour. Those are circumstances you can’t easily recreate elsewhere.
Adding to your point, Seoul is visible from North Korea, and vice-versa, and likely has enough conventional artillery aimed at it that even without nukes an invasion would be Very Bad for the Korean people.
North Korea is in such poor shape that they probably can't maintain much of the equipment much less keep the personnel trained and ready to use it effectively. Not a reason to go to war, but the threat to Soul and SK in general is likely massively overstated.
I think the strategic rational for unification completely swapped about 20 years ago. Up until the early 2000s it was likely in South Korea's, and the US's, interest to find a way to topple NK and unify the peninsula. The two populations had blood ties and common culture. Technologically the gap was growing but still reasonable. It would have been close to an east/west Germany type of situation where unification took effort but ultimately was clearly beneficial. China (and Russia) would have been losers in that unification would have brought a western friendly government even closer to their border. Additionally, NK still had a chance of re-energizing and becoming a real threat to SK.
Now however NK is in such bad shape that unification would be traumatic. South Korea would take on a problem of epic proportions, caring for and bringing a population of that size back into the broader world would be exceptionally costly and definitely not guaranteed to end well, possibly destabilizing SK in the process. Their cultures have grown apart making it hard for them to understand each other. The blood ties are not really there anymore. China and Russia would likely be the winners in that everyone sees NK as crazy and anyone helping them is hurting the world so they could get rid of that baggage. China especially would gain by having rail access to massive shipping assets to deliver goods even cheaper to the world. Finally, the US would loose a major rationale for stationing forces that close to China. They could, rightfully, say that NK isn't a threat and the massive US assets in South Korea and Japan should be drawn down.
> North Korea is in such poor shape that they probably can't maintain much of the equipment
Sadly we know from events in Ukraine that NK artillery works and that they have plenty of it. Yes, it's poor quality, but far from harmless.
Also to be clear: artillery is not exactly rocket science. They idea that NK doesn't have huge stockpiles is ludicrous.
It takes more than stockpiles of shells to be able to use it and maintain offensive positions capable of causing harm. From the reports I have seen NK military in Ukraine has been mostly cannon fodder and they are very untrained. That being said, joining the war effort in Ukraine is likely increasing their readiness.
Right... shells age. They blow up in the barrel, things like that. Maybe they even intentionally blow up in the barrel. Not that I would suggest sabotage. There's no way South Korean intelligence could possibly infiltrate North Korea ;)
But even so, if there was a serious threat of war, which is unlikely because China would stop North Korea, the US would place assets in the region and as we got close to a confrontation the US and South Korea (and as things are looking, probably Japan) would begin an aerial and missile bombardment to destroy in place North Korean offensive capabilities. Some would get through of course, perhaps thousands or tens of thousands of South Korean casualties, but in the context of a conventional war North Korea's capabilities would be quickly overwhelmed, at least in my opinion.
But honestly, the current status quo works pretty well for everyone except the people of North Korea, but there's not much we can do. It's a tragedy and the blame for that falls squarely on the Soviet Union and Chinese Communist Party.
> Some would get through of course, perhaps thousands or tens of thousands of South Korean casualties
This seems rather optimistic considering an incredibly dense South Korean city of 10M people is 20–30 miles from North Korea.
Yea I'm being optimistic - but the buildings themselves provide shelter, plus Koreans can take to the subway.
... And the US, who razed every building in North Korea and killed more than 10% of the entire population of North Korea (that's entire population, including civilians).
Nope. US was there under a UN banner, and the UN force was winning until China threw manpower into the war. Never mind Soviet support. The blame goes to the communists and them alone. Without them Korea would have been likely unified under what is now the democratic South Korea we know today, but the communists in China couldn’t have a democracy so close to them, so they fought to win and establish the brutal regime that we have today in North Korea.
Isn't artillery precisely rocket science?
No, it is precisely ballistics.
Propellant stored in the projectile vs propellant stored behind the projectile.
Thank you.
The only way unification can ever happen will be with Chinese blessing, with or without democracy. That would mean a full exit of US forces from the peninsula, and substantial pandering to the CCP and influence in Seoul. Which isn't that far off a thought honestly - for the most part, Korea was a tributary of China. With rapidly changing demographics and economic heft in both countries, it's even more likely SK will gravitate towards China, to the point that the Chinese will find more persuasion in unification and predictability.
All probably close to correct. I wasn't arguing that unification would, or should, happen (especially by force). I was arguing that the strategic value to China, SK, the west, etc have flipped as well as the actual capabilities of NK are likely vastly overstated.
The joke here is that in 20-50 years I'll bet worst Korea will be begging best Korea to reunify given the absolutely apocalyptic state of TFR south of the 38th parallel.
[dead]
Another fun trivia: Seoul and Pyongyang are closer than Washington DC (Union) and Richmond VA (Confederacy) by a considerable margin.
None of that would stop the current US administration from launching a sneak attack as we've seen several times in other countries. They simply do not care about consequences.
What is the analogous example or your argument? Was iraq sitting next to a china-grade neighbor? Who's venezuela china?
I assume you mean Iran rather than Iraq, but your point still stands.
The DPRK is a nuclear armed buffer state and shall remain so for the forseeable future.
> Reminds me of Blaise Pascal's quote: 'All human evil comes from a single cause, man's inability to sit still in a room.'
Ah but this is where modern technology comes in! Social media, Tiktoks, video games, porn...
The great pacifier.
“The revolution will be livestreamed” is not used correctly and not what “will be televised” means. You are using it in the opposite manner actually.
Op made an evocative point but then immediately betrayed it.
It is interesting to think about the difference of livestreaming versus television.
You can stop fighting. Nobody's going to livestream anything. The truth it too important to risk making it known/visible by accident.
And what's the truth?
The Vietnam War was the first one to be "televised" on pretty much a daily basis.
While more average US citizens and service members recognized the folly in greater numbers through time because of it.
It was the somewhat more extreme faction of the anti-war crowd that would have been in favor of a revolution of some kind, mainly because Nixon needed to be toppled ASAP without a doubt, they were just the most disruptive when it comes to "whatever it takes."
That's why the old saying was coined, "The revolution will not be televised."
No, my friends, the revolution will be live.
Exactly what they were talking about if it comes to that, too bold, sensible, and popular to be spun by media any other way.
You’re all still misinterpreting the statement it has nothing to do with whatever the current fad is or current tech is. Or what tech was used when the phrase was coined.
I guess nobody will ever know unless somebody more knowledgeable steps up to the plate :\
> You’re all still misinterpreting the statement it has nothing to do with whatever the current fad is or current tech is. Or what tech was used when the phrase was coined.
I mean, I'm just quoting the Gill Scott Heron song (well worth a listen, if you like 60s spoken word protest music). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUi580gA5BQ
> 'All human evil comes from a single cause, man's inability to sit still in a room.'
old men's*
Alexander "the Great" (mass murderer) began his conquests at the age of 20 and had conquered the largest empire the world had ever seen at the age of 26.
Hannibal was in his 20s when he lead the Carthagian campaign against Rome.
Napoleon began at 26 and had conquered half of Europe at 35.
War being a business of old men sending young men to die is a modern thing.
Young men eagerly vote for old men that promiss them war. Many young men see it as a chance to prove their masculinity and worth.
This anthropologist talked about radicalization among "lost" Muslim youth, but you can draw parallels to "lost" White youth...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlbirlSA-dc
not the last few election cycles
trump got young men's votes by, inter alia, chanting "no new wars"
evne during obama's presidency, trump (and others) suggested obama would start a war to distract from dropping poll numbers
young men haven't voted for dulce et decorum est in a loooong time
That's very backwards when you consider one of the things keeping WW3 from starting for so long was the continued existence of WWII veterans and the citizens of the countries they came from who sacrificed everything.
If we only still had a few hundred million of them still alive, it's the proven most effective thing anybody has ever had to prevent mindless war and/or nuclear war.
And they would all be between 100 and 150 years old by now.
Now that's elderly, and if the human race were to have been blessed with such a miracle it would be so good for them to continue teaching their lessons to those who never had the chance, and are just not mature enough to have any other clue yet.
You say this because young men use TikTok as a distraction?
>Contained conflagration, short targeted exchanges, probability of contamination low, material possibility of nuclear escalation.
That's describing something that's not a world war, though. The Russian invasion of Ukraine is already far worse than what you're describing as WW3. (setting aside nuclear escalation)
I'm surprised such a superstitious reply is so highly-upvoted. There's no "WW3" any more than there is time travel or blue smirfs. It's a hypothetical, but you're talking about it like it's an inevitability. That's just not logically-sound thinking.
WWII, contemporaneously, was thought of as several small regional wars: “wow, that Hitler guy has started a bunch of small limited conflicts.”
It was only when one stood back to regard the whole picture that it became clear that something larger was happening.
OP is making the same point.
When Hitler invaded Poland, it took all of two days for basically all of Europe to realize that they were about to replay the Great War (which we now call WW1).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declarations_of_war_during_Wor...
Of course it took longer for it to blow up into a truly global war (Pearl Harbor etc), but a conflagration across Europe is hardly a "small regional war".
Japan was already in China weren’t they?
Declaring war is one thing, but if you look at how leaders actually responded it's another (notice the 8 month gap from the declaration of war, into actual fighting). They were still willing to negotiate with Hitler, because most western leadership also wanted the communists to be destroyed and thought Hitler would do just that without attacking them. They were willing to push for this literally until the tanks were invading their streets.
Once Hitler invaded France the "phoney war" turned into a real war. [1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoney_War
Hitler attacked several countries before attacking Poland.
There has never been a moment in the known history of humanity without war going on somewhere in the world.
I'd bet on WW3 not happening in the next 20 years.
US's military power is too strong. Russia is in such a bad shape that it can't even win Ukraine. China never goes to any war; their equipments suck as we saw in the Venezuela occurrence.
Nobody is going to help Iran. China and Russia only see Iran as the enemy of my enemy. Other than that, Chineses and Russians are likely disgusted by Iran's culture e.g. how they treat women. It would be like wtf why are we helping people like this?
The world will continue being policed by US and Europe.
The US has shown very quickly that it is not a spent power. Compare what they have done recently in Venezuela and Iran to Russia's botching of taking Kiev and the mess ever since.
But to quote Fiona Hill in regards to China, Russia and iran.
--------------------
The Chinese have told the Europeans many times when they've been asked, 'Why are you continuing to support Russia? And why do you want Russia to win?' that, 'Well, if we wanted Russia to win, they would have won.'
Also, if they wanted Russia to lose, Russia would probably have lost.
China is, again, just gauging their support and playing all of this out, gaming it out, really, as to how it affects the United States one way or another.
The same is true of North Korea and Iran, she says: support for Russia has been built on antipathy towards the United States and their own beef with the United States.
> Well, if we wanted Russia to win, they would have won.
Good joke.
> North Korea developed nukes without being invaded
This one always interested me. I assume they were given a lot of the tech from China, and China probably told diplomats that if NK is invaded China might get involved.
The Soviet Union helped them build some research reactors, but they got the weapon tech from Pakistan.
It makes sense. Now is the perfect time for China to invade Taiwan.
First, I don't think this leads to WW3 although I would agree with you that there is a general global tendency towards escalation. Still, I think we can not call this WW3 and I am not 100% certain this is a build-up to WW3 either.
As for North Korea: I think the situation is not solely about North Korea itself but China. China is kind of acting as protective proxy here. I don't see North Korea as primary problem to the USA, but to South Korea and Japan. Both really should get nukes. Taiwan too, though mainland China would probably invade when it thinks Taiwan is about to have nukes; then again China already committed to invasion - this is the whole point of having a dictator like Xi in charge now.
The situation Russia is in is interesting, because even though they are stronger than Ukraine, Ukraine managed to stop or delay Russia, which is a huge feat, even with support. As Putin does not want to stop, and Trump is supporting him (agent Krasnov theory applies), I think this has escalation potential. Putin is killing civilians in Ukraine daily - I think he does that because he already committed to further escalation against all Europeans. So Europeans need a nuclear arsenal, but european politicians are totally lame - see Merz "we will never have nukes". Basically he wants to be abused by Putin here.
> So Europeans need a nuclear arsenal, but european politicians are totally lame
Are France's 240 submarines-launched thermonuclear ballistic missiles not adequate? Despite the need for security, nuclear proliferation is extremely bad. It seems ideal for France continue to maintain their nuclear weapons while the rest of Europe keeps their hands clean.
Say what you want about France, but their military has generally been extremely pragmatic and forward thinking*.
They've seen the writing on the wall about independent nukes for decades.
* WWII front collapse being more of a political failure than a military one: politicians dictating unachievable military strategies)
China won't invade Taiwan because it would destroy their economy and thus their country. Would wreck the entire world economy and turn every country against them.
It's nice nationalistic rhetoric, but there is literally no upside for them.
Taiwan needs nukes on low flying hypersonic cruise missles now. Seems that would halt Chinese aggression.
Epstein files have more potent power in them than any nuclear arsenal.
No way this many rich powerful people would go down without destroying at least half of the world.
It seems the admin would rather you focus on DoW or DOW. Any mention of Epstein is getting downvoted.
[flagged]
Is this a deflection? I'd be asking this question of any admin. I cannot stand what Obama and Biden let Merrick Garland get away with.
With you on the other things (we wouldn't be in this position if the Biden admin had had any interest in enforcing laws), but, other than his purely symbolic nomination, what role did Merrick Garland have in the Obama administration that Obama could "let him get away with" anything?
How can you have WW3 when your opponent has the military power equivalent of a butter knife? Instead of wishing for a WW3, I suggest you look at all of the people celebrating in the streets of Iran and even the US.
We are not heading into WW 3. Those old rich men you worry about have to pay a much higher price in cash for their illusions of control. And that reduces what harm and how long wars can run. Keep an eye on what the markets tell everyone on Monday.
Am I the only reading this comment as a incoherent vague rambling? In kinder words: what is your point/thesis exactly?
> And essentially none of us will know the truth, even the reasons.
Maybe not in the details, but the general geopolitical "axes" (USA/the "West" vs China/Russia/BRICS/"Global South"/etc) have become increasingly obvious in the last years. And so far, most of the recent conflicts fit pretty neatly into that pattern.
Of course there are more things running in parallel, like the general shift to the right, Trump in the US, the specific situation with Israel/Palestine, the emergence of AI, etc.
But I don't see why any of this needs any other "grand secret cause" to explain the current conflicts.
BRICS is Russia wishing that China (much less Brazil, Egypt, Ethiopia, India, Indonesia, South Africa, and the United Arab Emirates) were aligned to its interests.
A more accurate description of the way the world is trending:
US / UK / Europe / Japan / South Korea (still tied by defense, if push really comes to shove) vs Russia vs China vs Non-Aligned Nations (India, Indonesia, Egypt, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Ethiopia, Nigeria, etc.)
And historically (1960s), in a multi-polar world, middle powers are best served by being ambiguously aligned to force advantageous courting by major powers.
If this spreads into a broader conflict, it remains to be seen whether Europe sticks tightly with that block. They certainly won’t align with Russia, but they may be tied so closely to China economically that they can’t afford to be dragged into a direct conflict with them. I could see a situation where they try to remain non—aligned.
Given that we now that to deploy troops to prevent the US from invading Greenland.
I'd agree, it's not a given that the US can count on Europe in a conflict with China.
But probably Europe wouldn't be trading with China or anything.
It's just given the treatment of the US administration, the US probably can't build a volunteer coalition like I Iraq - unless there is an attack on US mainland.
Well, China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea seem to have a (fairly loose) "alliance of convenience" at the moment. "The enemy of my enemy", more or less.
Bartering some e-scooters for oil is hardly an alliance. Other than China, you just have a list of outcast countries on America, Europe, or the Middle East's sh*t list.
Hmm, I'm not sure trading is an alliance.
I doubt NK sent anything to Russia without payment in hard currency (gold).
NK was getting some reactor hardware from Russia. 'Unfortunately' the ship that was deliveing it, Ursa Major, went under in the Mediteranean.
Then have a look who is supporting whom with weapons, which militaries are running maneuvers together, who is cooperating - or not cooperating - economically, who is visiting each others' summits, etc.
It's true that many countries are trying to have relationship with both sides or are trying to keep all options open - which is the most reasonable strategy, I think - but there are still two power centers emerging between which those countries are aligning themselves.
> but there are still two power centers emerging
Yes. There is US and Israel in one side, and countries trying to maintain relationships with everybody on the other.
The most ridiculous thing about people claiming that BRICS is a military pole is that it has both India and China right there in the name. I don't know if you noticed, but those two almost got in an open war just in the last 6 months.
It's the West vs China with Russia as an also-ran with nukes now unfortunately.
Otherwise you've got some regional issues which is where Iran falls. None of the major players in the region like them, even if they would prefer not to have a conflict they'd be pretty stoked if the volatile regime was gone.
Most of those non-aligned nations are pretty much aligned with the west. Indonesia is absolutely aligned with the USA and the USA it. They are the "Indo" in Indo-Pacific Strategy!
What is the "west"?
Anyway, here's a reminder that two weeks ago the big war on everybody's head was USA against NATO.
Western liberal democracies and those closely aligned with them is colloquially "the west" now when talking geopolitics.
Obviously it's not geographic as Australia and New Zealand are in the Eastern Hemisphere but would always be assumed to be part of the "west" when discussing geopolitics.
What's missing here is the complex network of alliances that led to WWI. The Iranian regime has alienated virtually everyone, including many of its Muslim neighbors. Nor is the regime part of some overarching international movement, like the communist countries were. Who is going to lift a finger to help Iran?
I'm not supportive of these strikes. Iranians created this government, and if they want to topple it they'll have to be the ones to do it, without foreign intervention.
> I'm not supportive of these strikes. Iranians created this government, and if they want to topple it they'll have to be the ones to do it, without foreign intervention.
Well, foreign intervention kind of worked in Syria, Libya and Iraq after a few backstops, didn't it? All three countries reduced to rubble and virtually eliminated as threats to the US and Israel. Iran is next on the list, now that they're close to obtaing nukes. Let's not kid ourselves, they're not doing it for the Iranians, the're doing it for themselves. Regime change on their own terms, or if that isn't possible, yet another civil war.
The US spent trillions of dollars, 20 years and countless lives in Iraq and has nothing to show for it.
If they were meaningful threats to the U.S. it would be legitimate to eliminate them, without regard to Iranian sovereignty. It’s not clear to me that was true.
They're an existential threat to Israel and it also puts China's oil suppply chain under pressure as a bonus. Also, the US does absolutely not want them to get nukes. The regime is at its lowest popularity, so obviously this is the time to try and topple it. The problem is that it creates a power void ripe for terrorist factions to flourish in, as it was the case in Syria and Iraq.
Iran has been at war with the US since 1979.
No, the US has been at war with Iran since 1953
Interestingly Iran had moderately good relations with Russia, to whom they sold drones, and China, to whom they sold oil. But indeed not enough for either to help defend Iran.
With Venezuela, Cuba, and Iran, the US is bottling up Russian and Chinese global influence into smaller regional influence.
Indeed. The Gulf states didn’t want to get involved in this war for fear of upsetting local groups, but after the attacks have now jumped on board.
Iran basically has no state allies in the Middle East. Russia and China don’t seem any more committed than just arms sales.
What potential problem is upsetting the ethnic Apple cart in the region. We know countries like Iraq are a mix of Sunni and Shia with Iran supporting the Shia side quite significantly.
If the main supporting of Shia in the region (Iran) gets wiped out, Shia in varies countries like Iraq may feel much more vulnerable and make political moves preemptively.
Agreed, nobody is going to help out Iran.
If anyone does it'll be China giving them missiles to hit a US boat.
That would make the US turn tail. Not start a war with China.
As for Iranian leadership, they just need to dig deep and wait this out. I can't imagine they don't have plenty of hardened bunkers.
> If anyone does it'll be China giving them missiles to hit a US boat.
> That would make the US turn tail. Not start a war with China.
The right kind of missiles hitting the right kind of boat could lead to a very grave escalation.
Short of hitting the US mainland.
I doubt there is anything Iran can do that make the US put boots on the ground.
There is no appetite for boots on the ground in the US. And no coalition behind the US.
That scenario has played out before.
Eight hours later Iran's navy was at the bottom of the sea.
And there is no Iranian leadership right now as far as anyone can tell.
[flagged]
> The revolution will be live-streamed
I disagree with you on this. The revolution will never be live-streamed because the ability to do so is gated by the same people whom the revolution seeks to overthrow.
What's being live-streamed is the evolution of the status-quo towards growing hostility, violence, wars, and indeed - fascism.
hmmm - but is it really "world war" 3 if it's a bunch of localized conflicts?
I'm a little disappointed that the internet and social media had little impact on universal disclosure about geopolitical matters. My sense is that governments updated their playbooks to both defend against them (e.g. minimize leaking) and leverage them (e.g. bury inconvenient information with propaganda). By comparison, I'm more hopeful about cellphones and bodycams generally reducing excessive police violence and discrimination (emphasis on "reduce").
prediction: the nuclear threat will look quaint compared with disposable million-drone swarms on land and in the air, targeting anything remotely interesting via onboard AI.
“A bunch of localized conflicts” is what contemporaries thought WWII was before people realized the larger pattern.
[dead]
The revolution will be notably public, but not live-streamed. It will come as a swift and decisive reaction to a shock-and-awe deployment that will de-stabilize the state apparatus of a big nation outside of the “west”. The movement will be initially localized but it will spread until a perimeter of containment is setup around developed nations. Much more will come after.
I am just befuddled by how much of this violence is directly motivated by religious concerns, both on the side of Iran and on the side of Israel and USA.
I have been reading on the topic of shunyata or emptiness in Mahayana Buddhism, and have been uncomfortably observing just how much of the artifacts we take to be real and substantial in the world are just "made up". They don't have an inherent reality of their own except what we attribute to them. And yet, made up stories can have very real consequences in terms human suffering.
It ought to be possible to cut through the layers of reifications and simply defuse much of the strife in the world. And yet, we continue to inflict misery on each other unnecessarily.
You’re mistaking the packaging for the product. Religion is the language leaders use. Power, territory, oil corridors, regional dominance, and domestic political survival are what they’re actually fighting over.
Tehran isn’t calculating missile ranges based on sutras. Washington doesn’t position carrier groups because of metaphysics. Israel’s security doctrine isn’t a meditation retreat.
Spiritual narratives make clean moral theater for the public. They mobilize bodies. They sanctify retaliation. But the machinery underneath runs on leverage and deterrence, not theology.
Wake up to the real world.
Calling it primarily religious violence feels tidy and tragic in a philosophical way. It’s harder, and more uncomfortable, to admit that it’s strategic violence dressed in symbols people recognize.
Shunyata is a beautiful lens for seeing through ego. It doesn’t dissolve geopolitics.
> Israel’s security doctrine isn’t a meditation retreat.
"Security doctrine" is quite a euphemism for aggressive territorial expansion and ethnic cleansing, which is tightly wrapped in religious rhetoric.
Territorial expansion and ethnic cleansing boils down to "more resources for me and those most closely related to me genetically." It's difficult to think of a course of action that is more materialist and less abstract.
Do you think this materialist agenda would be successful if not for the religious brainwashing of the "Judeochristian" masses?
Obviously: https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg24132230-200-story-of...
religious rhetoric is for the fools they've indoctrinated to their cause. it does not drive policy. I was being sardonic with "security doctrine".
Israel today is run by a group of religious fundamentalists who do believe it is their "promised" land. And then we have an American ambassador publicly supporting this because he thinks that as a Christian he needs to support Israel's "Biblical rights" over the all of middle-east!
"a group of religious fundamentalists" led by... Netanyahu, who is completely secular if not an atheist. How does this narrative make sense?
(Of course some Israel politicians are religious; that's true of any country.)
You don't judge a person by what they say, but what they ultimately do - Netanyahu is a right-wing religious fundamentalist as is evident by the kind of right-wing identity politics he practice, his support for the assassination of Israeli (and Palestinian) leaders who didn't support his political ideology and sought peace (Israel PM Netanyahu denies incitement before murder of Rabin - https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/israel-pm-netanyahu-denie... , Will Israel ever have another leader who truly wants peace? - https://forward.com/opinion/780946/yitzhak-rabin-assassinati... ), his attempts to usurp democracy in Israel and become a dictator (If Benjamin Netanyahu and his coalition have their way, my country could deteriorate into a dictatorship. - https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/03/israel-ben... ), his calls for the genocide of the Palestinians in Gaza, and the military sanction for the actual ongoing genocide in Gaza (and now in West Bank). The Likud party he leads emerged from a terrorist organisation that conducted Hamas like massacres of the Palestinains. ( The Terrorist Forefathers of Israel: The Irgun and Lehi - https://dissidentvoice.org/2023/03/the-terrorist-forefathers... ).
If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and does what a duck does, it is a duck.
Netanyahu is not religious. He is, as the parent says, secular. If my cat quacked he's still not a duck.
There is "religion" in the broader sense which can be any set of beliefs but Netanyahu is as secular and logical as can be. He may be overly logical in the sense of advancing his personal agenda (avoiding standing trial) over the interests of his country but he's still very different than the religious crazies in Tehran where logic plays no role and g-d is everything.
I agree that one must be quite illogical and committed to some grander creed to issue a prohibition on nuclear weapons while Israel and USA are doing everything in their very much nuclear power to destroy you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Khamenei%27s_fatwa_against...
It's definitely illogical to enrich materials to nuclear grade and invest immense amounts in bunkers with centrifuges while saying you don't mean to have nuclear weapons.
No, those are both rational actions in this case. Iran getting nukes is less dangerous than only Israels current nukes. If both Iran and Israel had nukes, the region might have a chance at peace.
If Iran had nukes it would nuke Israel without any consideration for Israel's nuclear retaliation because in their thinking becoming a martyr in the course of killing the infidels is a good outcome.
The region will have chance at peace once the regime of Iran is removed.
I do this too. I think it is basically simulation out of fear. (modeling because of uncomfortableness with thinking with System 1 fast emotional / System 2 slow rational)
On the contrary, you're mistaking the means with the ends. Yes the regimes and their leaders think about oil corridors and regional proxies. Yes probably a chunk of the apparatchiks don't believe in the spiel and just care about enriching themselves off of corruption and so forth.
But religion, and not pure materialism, is absolutely at the center of the motivation of these people, the leaders and the population alike. It's not just, as you say, a sham that the leaders use to control and mobilise the masses. Religious fanaticism is at the source of the actions and the very existence of the Islamic Republic. Just as religious fanaticism is at the heart of the worst excesses of Zionism and the at-worst-genocidal, at-best-apartheid policies of Israel. It's not just materialism! It's not just prosaic greed! These people are moved by a holy fervour.
Like, this is the central mistake of Marxism, for all its merits in analysing the "capitalist mode of production", it is absolutely false that material conditions and class struggle are the engine of history.
> Religion is the language leaders use.
Yeah. Because people believe in in and leaders take advantage. DUH. Its not so peaceful religion all the way.
That was very well said. Thank you.
IMHO you're still making it too complicated; knives out GOT, titans of industry..
Sure, but it's even simpler.. The Ayatollah Regime funds regional terrorism. It destabilizes the region, gets people killed, and holds back progress.
Also, they are always seemingly always almost done building a nuke.. Which frankly nobody wants(not even them because they know they'd be obliterated the instant the world thought they actually had one or were about to for-reals have one).
They are BAD FOR BUSINESS both private AND PUBLIC.
As long as the rest of the region was developing eventually their number would be up. The recent uprising and massacre was the signal their number is up. Time to go, honestly signed all their neighbors.
It makes a lot more sense if you picture a bunch of organized, strong and merciless chimps attacking some other chimps to plunder what they have.
Chimps generally agree war is bad and horrific. But some smart, opportunistic and hard-working chimps can create situations that make war possible. Even though the war will only bring losses to most chimps on both sides.
The best political insight in this thread. This is the planet of the apes. If any future historians are reading, some of us primates were aware of the absurdity of the situation, horrified by the senseless violence that erupts again and again, led by sociopathic chimps that somehow managed to organize whole societies against each other and profit from the whole primitive enterprise. What a waste of human potential.
> I am just befuddled by how much of this violence is directly motivated by religious concerns, both on the side of Iran and on the side of Israel and USA.
Can you provide an example of this in 2026?
It seems a little tenable with the ayatollah and Iran. But even here you don’t hear much talk of this being a war in the name of religion anymore. Nowhere near a few years ago and certainly nothing like 9/11 and the Taliban.
And I hear nobody in Israel or America talking that way. Just a war defending people against attackers at the gates.
> And I hear nobody in Israel or America talking that way.
The American ambassador to Israel recently publicly said that Israel has a "biblical right" to the whole of the middle-east! (Watch these two interviews to understand how cleverly, and strongly, Israeli politics is tied up with American evangelical Christianity to keep American polity tied to Israel's existence - https://tuckercarlson.com/tucker-show-fares-abraham-021826 and https://tuckercarlson.com/tucker-show-mike-huckabee-022026 . Both these interviews give you a very insightful picture of how religious fundamentalist Israelis in power are total nutcases, supported by the American Christian fundamentalist fruitcakes).
Can you offer a source that wouldn't require us to listen to hours of Tucker Carlson?
The source is not Tucker Carlson - it is the person(s) he is interviewing. And if you don't want to listen to the interview, you can pay him to get a transcription of the interview and search through it. (Meanwhile, you may find this equally insightful - The Terrorist Forefathers of Israel: The Irgun and Lehi: https://dissidentvoice.org/2023/03/the-terrorist-forefathers... - supporting my arguments on how Jewish religious fundamentalists have captured power in Israel. Without getting rid of them, peace is not possible in that region as they are the other side of coin that was Hamas in Palestine).
The land promised to the Israelites generally extends from the Nile River in Egypt to the Euphrates River in Iraq/Syria, encompassing modern-day Israel, Palestine, Lebanon, Jordan, and parts of Syria and Saudi Arabia.
If you're a religious Jew, then you believe you have a mandate from God (so an irrefutable right, or even obligation, needing no justification) to settle and rule not only the West Bank but the entire region. So there will always be that motivation, as long as religious Judaism exists in Israel.
That is not the ruling Likud ideology in Israel nor the allied national religious ideology; both refer to Israel+Palestine+Golan as "the Whole Land of Israel".
And in any case, the "most religious" (ie those whose politics are most totally driven by Judaism) bloc in Israel are at best ambivalent about the Israeli state and the settlement enterprise, and actively hostile to military service.
Israeli hostility to Iran is driven by a "defensive" paranoia, not a religious mission.
Israel literally has minted coins with the image of Greater Israel (they claim this is only in reference to some ancient coin designs). The US ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee, has just a few days ago given an interview where he explicitly stated that Israel / the Jewish people has a right to that entire land, from the Euphrates to the Nile. The Israeli opposition leader was then asked about this, and he agreed with the US ambassador that yes, they do have this right, but that of course it must be viewed realistically given security and operational limitations.
Of course it needs to be approached pragmatically. If Israel stated that its number one goal is to rule the entire region, they wouldn't have been as successful as they are.
Also God didn't say when. But he did promise, according to the Book.
This is insane conspiracy theory nonsense, and is also not how actual Jews read the Tanakh.
(Which is also not referred to as "the Book", since it's a collection of books. This may seem like a nitpick, but I think is indicative of you getting your information from non-Jewish conspiracy theorist circles rather than anything related to Jewish theology or culture.)
I agree with you for the most part. But we aren't talking about the ordinary spiritual Jews or Christians or Muslims. We are talking about religious fundamentalists who have a very distorted view of their religion, and mix it with identity politics. Israeli-right religious fundamentalists have captured full power in Israel, and are now even threatening their own democracy. Don't forget that the Likud party that Netanyahu leads was once a terrorist organisation in its previous avatar, that used to do Hamas like massacre of Palestinians and assassinate Israeli leaders that didn't subscribe to their ideology and wanted peace with Palestine. Indeed, if the Israelis were freed of these religious fundamentalist leaders peace is very likely. (The Terrorist Forefathers of Israel: The Irgun and Lehi - https://dissidentvoice.org/2023/03/the-terrorist-forefathers... ) .
Benjamin Netanyahu is a rabid nationalist, not a religious fundamentalist.
Try to resist the temptation to lump me in with the conspiracy theorists. If you can, provide facts. Thanks for your nuance about the Books. I was using the terminology I learned for the Bible (which also consists of multiple Books, but is referred to as the Book), but I'm happy to switch to "scripture".
The Dati Leumi, the Religious Zionists, who constitute the ideological backbone of the settler movement, and have a lot of political influence in Israel, absolutely believe in their duty to govern the biblical land. For many, holding the West Bank is a religious obligation, and they consider the Golan settled and annexed. Religiously, the same principle that justifies them holding Golan applies to these territories.
Here are some recent statements from political leaders:
Bezalel Smotrich (Finance Minister, Religious Zionist party) "it is written that the future of Jerusalem is to expand to Damascus."
Daniella Weiss (prominent settler leader) said in 2024: "We know from the Bible that the real borders of Greater Israel are the Euphrates and the Nile."
Benjamin Netanyahu said he's on a "historic and spiritual mission" and that he is "very" attached to the vision of Greater Israel, which includes Palestinian areas and possibly also places that are part of Jordan, Egypt, Syria, and Lebanon.
Yair Lapid, the secular centrist opposition leader (!). "I don't think I have a dispute on the biblical level about what the original borders of Israel are... I support anything that will allow the Jews a big, vast, strong land."
Mike Huckabee (US Ambassador to Israel) "It would be fine if they took it all."
Huckabee speaks for himself and maybe some Christians.
I would say a lot of Jewish people and Israelis get upset at what you're saying and so maybe our reply will be a bit adversarial. Here's trying to be more factual (I used Gemini to research though I'm personally familiar with these figures as well).
Rabbi Ovadia Yosef (1920–2013): The highly influential former Sephardic Chief Rabbi of Israel. While his political party (Shas) later shifted rightward, Rabbi Yosef issued a landmark religious ruling in the late 1970s stating that Israel is permitted to cede land in exchange for a genuine peace treaty, prioritizing the sanctity of life over holding territory.
Rabbi Menachem Froman (1945–2013): An Orthodox rabbi and resident of a West Bank settlement who famously engaged in direct dialogue with Palestinian leaders, including the PLO and Hamas. He supported the creation of a Palestinian state, arguing that shared religious reverence for the land should be the foundation for peace rather than an obstacle.
Rabbi Michael Melchior: An Orthodox rabbi and former Israeli cabinet minister who leads the Mosaica religious peace initiative. He actively works on "track-two" diplomacy, fostering dialogue between Israeli rabbis and Palestinian imams.
Rabbi Yeshayahu Leibowitz (1903–1994): A highly influential Orthodox Jewish philosopher and scientist. Immediately following the 1967 Six-Day War, he became a vocal opponent of the military occupation of the Palestinian territories, warning that it would corrupt Israeli society and Judaism itself.
Rabbis for Human Rights: An active Israeli organization made up of over a hundred Orthodox, Reform, Conservative, and Reconstructionist rabbis. They physically protect Palestinian farmers, advocate against settler violence, and largely support a two-state solution based on the biblical mandate to protect the vulnerable.
On the question of the applicability of religion: "Does Judaism Mandate a Specific Political Solution?
No. Judaism predates the concept of the modern nation-state, so the religion does not explicitly mandate a "one-state" or "two-state" political framework. Instead, different religious camps emphasize competing core values within Jewish law (Halakha) and scripture to justify their political stances"
There's a lot more to explore and I encourage you do that on your own.
Remember, the claim wasn't that all Israelis believe or support this. The claim was that religious motivations for violence exist. And a stronger claim that I think I have sufficiently defended was, that many influential people have these motivations.
If the weaker claim is that some Israelis have religious motivations or feel like religion supports their position - sure. But big picture religion doesn't play as large as a role for Israelis as it might play for Iran or let's say Hamas or the Houthis. Even with those more religious actors I don't think religion is the only driver, e.g. with Iran this is probably partly just a way to control the population vs. a religious belief held by everyone in the regime (not sure about the ex-supreme leader)
The claim was that all religious Jews believe this. The motte-and-bailey is unseemly.
> If you're a religious Jew, then you believe you have a mandate from God (so an irrefutable right, or even obligation, needing no justification) to settle and rule not only the West Bank but the entire region.
Well not really , most Orthodox definitely don't believe this in fact some of them are anti Zionist and the ones who accept Israel's existence definitely do not think Israel needs to expand its borders like that. So no to that.
Israeli have a diverse spectrum of religious denominations. This includes religious, non Orthodox Jews. Dati Leumi (the religious Zionists) are by far the most hawkish. They absolutely believe that the biblical land belongs to the Jewish people. They account for about 15% and are incredibly politically influential.
The Haredim (the ultra-Orthodox) are more complicated, and in general don't want all the promised land (they believe that the state established militarily/politically isn't the "spiritual" state that was promised). But, when it comes to the currently occupied land, they have been shifting right in recent years. They vote in coalition with the nationalist right, and their communities increasingly overlap geographically with settlements.
The Dati Leumi camp isn't as uniform as you portray it. There are many examples (e.g. Avrum Burg, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avraham_Burg ) do not think Israel should be over the entire historical/biblical region ("Eretz Israel Ha-Shlema").
More examples are:
- Rabbi Yehuda Amital and the Meimad Party
- Rabbi Aharon Lichtenstein
You are confusing politics and religion.
> You are confusing politics and religion.
Religious Zionism is a religious denomination.
National Religious Party–Religious Zionism is a political party.
It feels unfair and unjustified that you are accusing me of confusing them without substantiating your accusation. I am still open to learn anything that you might want to share with me that you think is important.
So Avrum Burg I mentioned in another comment is historically affiliated with the "Mafdal", the religious party. That religious party, just like religious zionism in general, isn't one uniform block. It has different opinions and it evolves.
I feel like I lost track of the discussion. At some point I thought you were claiming something along the lines that says religious Jews believe they are under an order from God to expand Israel to its maximal biblical geographical area.
If your claim is that the current day Mafdal's political (not necessarily religious) position is that Israel should annex the West Bank and Gaza. Ehm, sure, maybe. I think it's a bit more nuanced even than that but I won't argue on this point.
It's possible I just lost the thread, and if I did I apologize. HN isn't very good at facilitating this sort of discussion. If I mis-stated your position above and am agreeing with the wrong thing I'm sure you'll correct me.
[EDIT: correcting myself a little bit Burg actually ended up as a member of the Labor party in politics, but his politics did originally align with the Mafdal, the party is/was supposed to represent all Zionist Religious people but has obviously diverged a bit from that)
> At some point I thought you were claiming something along the lines that says religious Jews believe they are under an order from God to expand Israel to its maximal biblical geographical area.
I just meant that there's a part of the religious spectrum prone to that interpretation, and it mixes very well with nationalism, and expansionism. And that it isn't a meaningless fringe, but has a significant political representation. What I wrote was a reasonable way the scripture can be interpreted by someone who believes it's a true word of God.
If I'm wrong, and e.g. the Miflaga Datit Leumit party explicitly rejects this kind of intepretation then I stand corrected, but judging by what its leader says publicly this isn't the case...
Unlike Iran what the leader says isn't some ultimate mandate to the followers. Party leaders, and members, come and go and their platforms changes over time.
Smotrich, e.g., says and does lot of things. Some of them resonate with some members of his party, others don't.
As to the party's platform you can read it here: https://zionutdatit.org.il/en/party-platform/
I would push back on the idea of expansionism. I don't think that's a mainstream view in the party at all. The party does support annexing the West Bank and Gaza which to be honest is the only workable solution anyways regardless of where you're coming from and really the best outcome for Palestinians as well if they become full Israeli citizens.
Well you gave it more nuance here than in your original message that determined "If you're a religious Jew...".
Bennet is dati leumi and represents a big chunk of the mainstream/modern dati leumis. Any signs he's after conquering Saudi Arabai and Egypt ? Not really. Even Smotrich "only" wants the West Bank.
Tell that to the millions of Hasidic Jews in the United States who do not believe that a Jewish nation should exist at all.
Thanks for this information, I'd like to offer something in return.
Only certain Hasidic groups oppose Israel, including Satmar Hasidim (over 100k followers), and Neturei Karta (fringe, only about 1k supporters). That's less than millions, and a minority within the Hasidic world.
Theologically, they oppose it based on an interpretation a Talmudic passage saying that establishment of Israel has to happen after the coming of the Messiah.
Additionally, there are a lot different denominations of Jews within Israel, some of whom have more pragmatic views. But a significant, politically influential minority believes in their duty to govern all biblical land.
A belief that Jews were given lands millennia ago does not imply a justification, let alone an obligation, to violently reconquer those lands today.
Consider that we haven't had a Sanhedrin (supreme Jewish council) for a while, which makes a bunch of Jewish law unenforceable. While there's some fringe interest in reinstituting the classical system, there's no scripture that would clearly obligate Jews to do so. Most just accept that times have changed.
Similarly while there's some fringe interest in recapturing all historic Jewish lands, there's no scripture that would clearly obligate Jews to do so. Most just accept that times have changed.
You can find a few weird individuals anywhere if you look hard enough, but portraying "religious Jews" broadly as aspiring to conquer the whole Middle East is way off base.
> If you're a religious Jew, then you believe you have a mandate from God (so an irrefutable right, or even obligation, needing no justification) to settle and rule not only the West Bank but the entire region. So there will always be that motivation, as long as religious Judaism exists in Israel.
I would say this is generally false.
There are many religious Jews who believe there should be no state of Israel until the Messiah comes. Judaism is very open to interpretations and certainly within the question of modern state politics doesn't have as much to say as you seem to think it does.
There are many different Rabbis in Israel with different political opinions and generally their followers will tend to hold similar beliefs. There are right wing Rabbis and left wing Rabbis, it's not uniform at all. During the Oslo peace process there were many religious people supporting and many opposing, pretty much the same as secular.
What is true is that some Israelis view their right to the land in the context of the biblical promise God made our people. That is not the same thing. Funny enough I'd say more Christians believe the literal promise and it's implication on current day politics than Jews. It's also true that religious people these days tend to be more right leaning politically. But the religion isn't mandating those world views it just that they can align.
I will grant you this: there are many Israelis that don't believe this, and some of them are religious.
Will you grant me this: religious motivations for violence exist within Israel, including the ruling political class?
Imagine making such a blanket claim of religious Muslims. It is wild how people can assign with authority jews motivations/behaviors. If you make the same claims of conquest but with regards to Muslims, it wouldn't be acceptable. Should we allow such claims to understand Muslims behaviors, or have you stepped over a line in your defining religious Jews?
The evangelicals support isreal due to religious obligation.
Project 2025, a christian nationalist policy advisement widely followed by the current regime, prescribes supporting isreal
Evangelicals point to Genesis 12:3 as justification but never seem to have ever read any of Galatians 3.
[flagged]
That tweet does not support your claim, and it is in fact not Purim yet.
How does that tweet not support my claim? It's CNN reporting, here's the actual article: https://edition.cnn.com/world/live-news/israel-iran-attack-0...
The tweet and article say the timing comes with symbolism, not that the symbolism was the reason for the timing.
Correlation is not causation, and the article does not even claim causation.
Why would a mainstream media article be correlating war crimes with niche religious symbolism? It's Jewish supremacy propaganda at the very least.
I feel like this sort of symbolic planning means you don't even need to leak to the wrong Signal chat group to telegraph your attack? Especially when enemy warships have already been hovering for a few days...
I have a very hard time understanding how the US is attacking Iran because of Christianity. I cannot even anticipate the hypothesis.
America's Evangelical Christian Right:
https://www.cnn.com/2025/06/29/us/iran-israel-evangelicals-p...
https://archive.ph/Pz81T
Huckabee one week ago:
"Citing the book of Genesis, Carlson asked whether the modern state of Israel had a right to the lands promised in the Bible by God to Abraham, stretching from the Euphrates River to the Nile, covering much of the Middle East. In response, Huckabee said: “It would be fine if they took it all. But I don’t think that’s what we’re talking about here today.”
https://www.cnbc.com/2026/02/21/mike-huckabee-claims-israel-...
It's not said in polite company, but Israeli concerns are racial, not religious. If you meet a Jewish zionist, then you've also met an athiest. An explanation of Christian Zionism deserves much longer discussion than can be made here, but how and why such an obvious contradiction to Jesus' ministry gained popularity is something worth studying.
Once you realize the gospels and the epistles disagree, it becomes a lot easier to understand. Christianity is the practice of cognitive dissonance. The bible, due to the nature, has a lot of mixed messaging.
Imagine, for example, you wanted to write the religion of Liberalism, so you collect the works of all the major thinkers on the subject of liberalism into one book. Now imagine someone gets the bad idea that all these authors must actually have a unified view on what liberalism is, means, and implies. You'll end up seeing that person teach a form of liberalism that's easily countered with other passages from their book and they'll mostly just wave it away because they have their passages and the others are simply you misinterpreting an "obvious" metaphor.
That is christianity in a nutshell, just replace liberalism with god. That's why there are so many sects. Because it's just too easy to yell "Context context context!" when a difficult passage comes up you don't agree with and use "spiritual" as the excuse for why you don't actually have to follow that passage.
Not entirely accurate:
1. Many Israeli Jewish Zionists are either "traditional" (religious but not that much) or Religious Zionist, and they are generally part of the right wing coalition. Actual atheists tend to be in the Israeli (still-Zionist) left.
2. The Zionist conception of Jewish identity is not "racial" in the American sense. The most obvious sense in which this is true is that it considers converts and their descendants full members of the nation. Probably the closest analogies are some Native American nations' identities or Armenian nationalism.
But you're directionally correct - Zionism is not a particularly religious ideology within the Jewish world, and outside of the Religious Zionist minority the political class is (openly!) on the less observant end even on the right.
When it comes to battles of religion, Alan watts said it best.
"Since opposed principles, or ideologies, are irreconcilable, wars fought over principle will be wars of mutual annihilation. But wars fought for simple greed will be far less destructive, because the aggressor will be careful not to destroy what he is fighting to capture. Reasonable–that is, human–men will always be capable of compromise, but men who have dehumanized themselves by becoming the blind worshipers of an idea or an ideal are fanatics whose devotion to abstractions makes them the enemies of life."
It is rare to find a comment on shunyata on HN. I wanted to deepen the discussion on that, instead of move into geopolitics or the justification of status quo reality. I think youre very correct that war is unnecessary, if only we realize the illusory nature of many of the things we desire or hate.
Shunyata means everything is empty. Empty of what? Empty of inherent, independent existence. That means everything is connected -- not only connected, but mostly illusory, sitting on top of a reality that cannot be understood in terms of objects, processes, distinctions, or boundaries between objects. Sometimes, this connection takes on strange forms.
For example: The horrible reality of war was a direct cause for your compassionate unease. I.e. war acted as a cause for compassion. This is strange. How do we reconcile this disturbing relationship, where a compassionate response is directly the child of war? In other words, horrific war has given rise to compassion, and this is a causal relationship, in the same way that a child arises from a mother. So, violence and love can arise from each other? What? Are they not supposed to be opposites?
The next step is a bit more provocative. Shunyata seems to imply that, since everything lacks inherent and independence existence, then suffering is not a part of the human condition. Instead, it is a mental construct. It isn't that the suffering of humanity does not exist; it's that it is constructed by the mind.
Deleuze and Guattari offers an interesting viewpoint on this. There are various intensities that do arise naturally. Injury, for example, is an intensity. But, suffering itself is not "really-real" unless we reify the intensities as suffering. And eliminating suffering partially involves the non-reification of intensities into suffering.
Obviously, easier said than done.
Anyway I'll leave it there. It's probably quite easy to destroy my points here, so I would appreciate it if people steelmanned my comment instead of strawmanning it. Shunyata is a genuinely useful discussion from a mental health and human flourishing standpoint. And has some very interesting and rigorous logic behind it. (see Mulamadhyamakakarika by Nagarjuna)
Complexity can lead to "more is different" outcomes at higher strata. I would not say reified concepts are "made up" as they can have very real effects on both higher and lower strata.
The fallacy of reification is treating something emergent as a thing-unto-itself rather than a process or interaction born from constituents at a lower stratum. A reified thing can be recognized and changed for this reason. A mental concept needs only a change of mind to mutate, or to be destroyed.
Religion may well prove to be a reification that is destroyed once it is recognized as such. But I do believe that you cannot reduce that which is real and not real to only those things that have physical antecedents at lower strata, as we see emergent phenomena in the physical world as well.
Fallacy.
(Wrong) Knife fight: a fight between people about knives
(Right) Knife fight: a fight between people using knives
It had nothing to do with religion, that element is used to distract.
They are following their books like a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Religion poisons everything.
Examples abound; but for good and ill, the language-using ape seems to be a religious animal, having co-evolved with mythological memeplexes.
There's the old salt from DFW, "one can't choose whether to worship, only what to worship". Less apologetics, perhaps, than a realmythos (akin to realpolitik).
Nature abhors a vacuum, and something inevitably fills the void: the "god-shaped hole" in individuals, and the game-theoretic basin of attraction, the actual realpolitik of loyalty-signaling, load-bearing fictions which bind an "imagined community". (The first might be manageable, but the second is a doozy: a faith which could not be more explicitly anarcho-pacifist mutated into justification for brutally violent hierarchies of domination and exploitation. So it goes.)
Mythology does not equal religion.
And the fact you feel a hole that religion fills for you doesn’t mean it’s there in everyone. Enforced religious participation is never proof that religion is what people crave.
I don't disagree. I trimmed "religious and mythological memeplexes" down to avoid repetition. (Also worth considering: de-facto religious behaviors need not be supernatural or "mythological"; you can substitute your own examples of political ideologies that are difficult to distinguish from religions in practice.)
It is obviously a deeply complicated and complex phenomenon. Even the Dennett/Dawkins model of selfish replicators aren't necessarily sufficient, in addition to my claim that the relationship between genes and memes can sometimes be mutually symbiotic (and I'm aware of the great many counter-examples).
To be clear, I don't hold to a particular faith myself (and I've spent time at both ends of the spectrum). I suspect that the so-called "god-shaped hole" is one of many characteristics that varies in the human animal, not unlike those who have a mind's eye and those who don't, or those who hear their thoughts audibly and those who don't.
> Enforced religious participation is never proof that religion is what people crave.
While what people crave obviously varies, I think most people do crave something like meaning and community (or flipping it around: selection pressures seem to have selected for meaning and community, presumably at least in part from a green-beard effect [0]). While those can exist independently of faith, we can empirically observe that they tend to overlap quite a lot (again, for good and ill).
While I'd agree with you regarding illiberal theocracies and religious totalitarianism, I'd problematize your framing in two ways: (a) "forced" implies that someone is doing the forcing, meaning presumably someone craves it, or is at least willing to play along [1]; but more pertinently, (b) there is a middle ground between the extremes of "explicit individual choice", and "forced participation": norms, culture, emulation, etc.
No one "forces" anyone in the business world to wear suits, or use LinkedIn jargon; but the incentives are in favor of doing so (and against not doing so), so people play along: some cynically, some internalizing norms sincerely. If we hit a magic History Randomizer Button that shuffled historical contingencies, I don't think we'd have an absence of those norms, but other norms with different details. And I suspect we'd see different churches and myths and holy books, not an absence of them.
To reiterate, I'm just talking Darwinian functionality here, not whether religion is good or bad in a normative sense. If the niche exists, "nature finds a way".
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green-beard_effect
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0iEWTx_APQ4
Religious concerns are, IMHO, always a facade for the underlying economic/territorial/geopolitical reasons. These religious facades help sell the war effort: get young men to enlist and fight to the death for "preserving their identity". And "muh freedom" is just as much a religious motivation to me (unsubstantiated, indoctrinated, unthreatened).
Religion isn't the facade, it is the medium through which other reasons are transmitted
There is also point of view that remembers that always right behind US military there is a team building next oil pipeline. US tried to used China as cheap labor, lost a lot of intelligence and now - look at how much oil Iran has and who is it exporting to and what is the percentage at the destination. The numbers add up and only the funny (?) thing is - China is (going to) be most eco country, because they already use nuclear power a lot and were forced to work on that.
What a time to be alive, again! And please, downvote me, comment that US is fighting for some country’s civilians freedom. It’s fun too.
It makes you wonder about religion's true purpose. It's a really convenient framework for creating peoples/regions that hate each other, isn't it, as history has shown for millenia
> Buddhism
No one lives up to their ideals on a day-to-day basis:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rohingya_genocide
> I am just befuddled by how much of this violence is directly motivated by religious concerns, both on the side of Iran and on the side of Israel and USA.
This just isn't true. Religion is never the reason for these conflicts. It's the excuse. It's how that conflict is sold to the rest of the world. It's how civilians are manipulated into dying in a conflict.
The source of these conflicts is always material. Always.
Reagan's Secretary of State, General Alexander Haig once said [1]:
> Israel is the largest American aircraft carrier in the world that cannot be sunk, does not carry even one American soldier, and is located in a critical region for American national security.
In 1986, then Senator and future president Joe Biden said [2]:
> [Israel] is the best $3 billion ivnestment we make. Were there not an Israel, the United States of America would have to an invent an Israel to protect her interest in the region.
Much of US Middle East polciy was aimed to sabotaging and undermining Pan-Arab Nationalism (particularly under then Egyptian President Nasser) [3].
Nothing about any of this has anything to do with faith. In this case it's about oil.
Whatever crimes you think Iran might've done, I'll stack up the US crimes against Iran and it won't even be close, including:
1. Iran was a liberal democracy that the US deposed in 1953 at the behest of the British because BP didn't want to have to pay higher royalties, ultimately leading Mossadegh wanting to "nationalize" their own oil;
2. In 1978, then US-puppet Saddam Hussein expelled Khomenei from Iraq. This was about the time the US realized that Iran was likely lost. it is believed that the reason for this was that a fundamentalist regime was preferred to a Communist one (which was otherwise the likely outcome) as the US didn't want Iran to fall into the Soviet sphere of influence. So all this pearl-clutching about the current regime rings hollow when you realize the US helped created it;
3. As punishment for the Revolution, the US supplied weapons to Iraq and fueled the Iran-Iraq war for almost a decade that killed over a million people; and
4. Crippling economic sanctions, which is a fancy way of saying "starving people and denying them medical care", for daring not to be a US puppet.
If you point me to any conflict you think is based on faith, I'll show you the material interests behind it.
[1]: https://archive.ph/tMTBd
[2]: https://www.c-span.org/clip/senate-highlight/user-clip-joe-b...
[3]: https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1958-60v12...
> The source of these conflicts is always material. Always.
Since the beginning of the Green Revolution¹, no. The source of these conflicts are always ideological. Always. Ideology may come through religion or some other medium.
Countries don't go occupying land because they need crops or slaves anymore. Material is always cheaper to buy than to get from an occupation. The desire to annex some land is always for somebody's pet project, it doesn't make economic sense.
1 - In a very wide sense. Agriculture stopped being the bottleneck for human populations at some point in the 18th or early 19th centuries.
Religion is a subset of ideology, and both are a mechanism to recruit labor to fight and not the reason for conflict. Material isn't cheaper to buy, the "owner" of the material has all of the leverage - lock them in like a SaaS contract and them jump the price up, and the buyer can't do anything. Crops and slaves are no longer valuable as port worthy coast and natural resource deposits, but the fight is still over land and power.
> Israel is the largest American aircraft carrier in the world that cannot be sunk,
Airstrip one is disappointed.
I think the praise of the strategic value to US military interests are rationalizations and poor ones at that. The Gulf monarchies are allies in a meaningful sense and provide useful material support to the United States. Our “ally“ on the other hand was recently caught running a child prostitution ring and money laundering operation to control business and political leaders in the United States. Kidnapping children and removing their teeth so they can’t bite their rapists for political leverage is going to be remembered by future generations with the same horror and disgust as medieval torture and 20th century concentration camps.
[flagged]
Hey there I'm Israeli and I'm quite politically informed and moderately religiously educated and I have never heard of this "curse of the eighth decade" thing you've heard of.
You probably know a lot more than me but my understanding is there have been two previous Jewish states in the Levant, the ancient Kingdom of Israel ruled by King David and then the Hasmonean dynasty during the Second Temple period.
Both of those states lasted for around 80 years before collapsing. My (probably worthless) 2c is there's nothing magical or surprising about that, a lot of people have pointed out that political entities often last around the length of a human life before change occurs.
The most prominent current theory is the Strauss–Howe "fourth turning" one but the idea goes back further than that
Huh. Interesting.
This is not a common narrative in Israeli discourse (especially since in that discourse David's kingdom is considered to have continued in the southern Kingdom of Judah, and to have lasted several centuries).
Isreal did have some polarization among liberal-conservative sides recently. Protests and all that. Could be
I'll know from how many downvotes I get whether I've touched a nerve or not
Well hopefully this is short, minimally lethal, and leads to regime change for all those involved.
>leads to regime change for all those involved
Including for the U.S. and Israel?
Pretty sure he chose his words carefully.
It is difficult to instigate regime change for democratically elected governments.
Iran has an unelected supreme leader.
Israel has a large portion of its population completely disenfranchised.
The US has a generally democratically elected government.
If one of these governments is going to fall during military instabilities, it would most likely be Iran. The US will have significant regime change in November if polling holds.
> Israel has a large portion of its population completely disenfranchised.
Care to elaborate? As far as I know, this is false. All Israeli citizens 18 or older can vote; there are no voting restrictions based on race, religion, gender or property; prisoners can vote (unlike in many US states for example); permanent residents who are not citizens cannot vote in national elections but may vote in municipal elections (not the case in the US). National turnout ranges between 65% and 75%.
Minorities are well represented: Arab and Druze citizens vote and have representation in the Knesset.
I struggle to find any dimension in which your statement is correct.
Very obviously, I’m referring to the Palestinians in the “Palestinian Territories” being de facto governed by Israel and are not allowed to vote in Israeli elections.
There is nothing obvious about that statement. In fact it's catastrophically wrong.
Palestinians in Gaza have been governed by Hamas since 2006. Before that, they had been governed by the Palestinian Authority (Fatah) since 1994.
Palestinians in Judea and Samaria ("West bank") have been governed by the Palestinian Authority continuously since 1994, with the exception of Area C.
Palestinians who live there are NOT "de facto governed" by Israel. They pay taxes to the Palestinian Authority; receive birth certificates, IDs, business licenses and social security payments from the P.A.; Go to schools, hospitals, courts, police stations and jails run by the P.A. And most importantly, they vote in elections run by the P.A. To say that they are "de facto governed" by Israel is ridiculous, and shows a lack of basic understanding of Israel and Palestine, and the conflict between them.
"The exception of Area C" is doing a lot of work in this argument. That's 61% of the territory of the West Bank ("Judea and Samaria") (those scare quotes also doing a lot of work).
To counter your list of things that the PA does de facto control, I will add: who controls the criminal court system? The checkpoints which lead to the outside world? The airspace? The ability to import and export goods? The roads? The territorial contiguity of Areas A and B? The decisions on building new settlements?
Aside from the municipal things you mentioned, which in most places in the world are controlled by subnational entities, Israel is in de facto control of the lives and futures of all 15 million people "from the river to the sea", roughly half of them Jews and half of them Arabs, while only one of those groups has what anyone in the West could consider to be a normal existence.
> "The exception of Area C" is doing a lot of work in this argument. That's 61% of the territory of the West Bank
Area C is less than 10% of the Palestinian population in the West Bank, 6% of Palestinian population if you count Gaza. Interesting that you chose to focus on territory! Last I checked, square kilometers do not vote, people do.
In any case, you are right that Area C is more complicated, since it is controlled by Israel and there are Palestinians who live there.
However, Palestinians living in area C can also vote in Palestinian elections. So although it is true that they live in a territory governed by Israel (unlike the other 94% of Palestinians), it remains false that they are a "large part of the Israeli population that is disenfranchised" (the original statement).
> ("Judea and Samaria") (those scare quotes also doing a lot of work).
Obviously the choice of name for this region reflects a political preference. But that works both ways. I prefer to call it Judea and Samaria because that's what it was called until 1948, when Jordan invaded and annexed it. "West bank" is a relic of Jordanian occupation, chosen by King Abdullah to absorb the region into his kingdom, not just politically but semantically. Jordan hasn't controlled the region in 60 years - longer than the occupation itself. It seems reasonable to stop calling it by its colonial Jordan name.
You seem to take particular issue with my use of the term "Judea and Samaria". That is also a political preference. Do you care to explain it the same way I explained mine?
> To counter your list of things that the PA does de facto control, I will add: who controls the criminal court system?
In areas A and B, the Palestinian Authority.
> The checkpoints which lead to the outside world?
On the Israeli side: Israel. On the Jordanian side: Jordan.
> The airspace?
Israel
> The ability to import and export goods?
The Palestinian Authority, but subject to stringent security control by Israel.
> The roads?
In Areas A and B: the Palestinian Authority.
> The territorial contiguity of Areas A and B?
That was jointly defined by the bilateral agreement at Oslo. So, both sides agreed on that.
> The decisions on building new settlements?
In area C: Israel.
In areas A and B: there are no settlements (Jews are not allowed to live there).
> Israel is in de facto control of the lives and futures of all 15 million people "from the river to the sea"
We're straying from the original topic of disenfranchisement... I will just say that, in my opinion, your view is simplistic and manichean. The closest we ever got to a resolution of the conflict, in 1994, was with a bilateral agreement. Neither side is fully in control of the outcome. Denying that Palestinians, too, have responsibilities and agency, is the surest way to perpetuate this conflict.
>> Israel is in de facto control of the lives and futures of all 15 million people "from the river to the sea"
> We're straying from the original topic of disenfranchisement
What a laughable statement. This is entirely the point of the disenfranchisement claim.
In what way is it laughable? Please contribute something of substance.
To wit, if you get to vote for the HOA board but not for the government that can override every decision the HOA makes, are you meaningfully enfranchised?
They're arguing that due to the failure/stalling of the two-state solution, the PA is effectively not a national government. It administers local services, like policing, courts, infrastructure. But it doesn't control borders, tarrifs and duties, or airspace. The Israeli military operates a parallel legal system that can detain and prosecute them, all under a legal framework that they have no vote or say in. I think its fair to call this a kind of disenfranchisement?
I understand where you're coming from, but this is a flawed analogy.
The legal framework for the Palestinian Authority's existence is a bilateral treaty. Israel did not unilaterally create this flawed administrative entity: it was jointly created with the PLO, as an interim step towards a fully sovereign Palestinian state. The negotiations that followed were also bilateral. These negotiations failed, leaving both sides with an incomplete interim solution. As a result Palestinians are neither citizens of Israel, nor of a wholly sovereign state. They are stateless, that is undeniable. But the reason they are stateless is not that they "have no vote or say". They had a say at the negotiation table in Oslo. They also had a say in Camp David in 2000, when Yasser Arafat walked away from a deal that would have given him a state with its capital in Jerusalem, and started the second intifada instead. They had a say in 2005 when they elected Abbas over reformist alternatives. They had a say in 2006 when they elected Hamas in Gaza. And they have a say now, as Abbas maintains the "pay to slay" program that rewards attacks against Israeli citizens with welfare payments to the attacker's families. There's a reason Israel insisted on overriding security control in the interim state. They couldn't trust the PLO, the very group that killed countless Israeli civilians in shootings, stabbings and bombings, to become the sole guardians of Israeli safety overnight. In Oslo the Palestinian Authority accepted the responsibility to prevent terrorist attacks against Israel. They are free to deliver on that commitment anytime.
My issue with your framing ("the PA is like an HOA"), the parent comment's framing ("Israel solely controls the fate of Palestinians"), and the original comment that started this whole debate ("Palestinians are a disenfranchised part of Israeli population"), is that it strips Palestinians of agency and shared responsibility. It's annoying when you do it. But it's tragic when Palestinians do it to themselves. By perpetuating this myth that they are helpless, blameless victims of external forces, they are making internal reform impossible ("what is there to reform? All our problems are Israel's fault") and any resolution to the conflict impossible ("we are the rebels, Israel is the empire. The only resolution is to blow up the death star").
To tie this back to the original topic of disenfranchisement: even in the flawed interim state created in Oslo, Palestinians have had the opportunity to vote. Not in a state, but in an institution created specifically to chart a path to a state. They elected a president, who then proceeded to cancel presidential elections (the last one was in 2005). They elected a legislative body, who started a civil war and established one of the most violent theocracies in the world. None of this was Israel's doing. To the extent that Palestinians are disenfranchised - denied the opportunity to vote - it is by their own leaders. If anything, it makes me glad Palestine isn't a full-blown state: with leaders like that, the more limits to their power, the better.
I shouldn’t even have to argue here. Access to the West Bank is controlled by Israel. That is de facto governance.
At best the Palestinian Territories have “quasi-governmental control.” I’m saying this as someone who isn’t particularly pro-Palestine. Pretending that Israel isn’t de facto the government of the Palestinian Territories is an unserious position.
By de facto I mean explicitly not de jure.
> I shouldn’t even have to argue here
If you don't like to argue, may I suggest not making controversial claims on controversial topics, in a place that encourages constructive debate?
> Access to the West Bank is controlled by Israel.
That is mostly true. On the border with Jordan it is jointly controlled by Jordan and Israel (like most international borders).
> Pretending that Israel isn’t de facto the government of the Palestinian Territories is an unserious position
I already explained in great detail the specific ways in which the Palestinian Territories are, in fact, governed by the Palestinian Authority. Taxation, elections, justice, police, education, healthcare, roads, sewers, business regulation, population register...
So far your counter-argument is that Israel controls the border... and therefore Palestinians should vote in Israeli elections? Should they also vote in Palestinian ejections? Or should the P.A. simply stop to exist? What point are you even making exactly?
Calling me "unserious" doesn't make you automatically "serious", or right.
You are confusing de facto control and de jure control. That’s why I’m arguing the position is unserious. I don’t know anything about you personally.
You’re making my point anyway, by conceding that the West Bank is effectively governed without representation in the governments controlling them.
I don't think the terms de facto and de jure mean what you think they mean. At this point it appears you're just throwing fancy words at me, and are not able to make a coherent point or meaningfully address mine. So, let's just agree to disagree.
The person you're responding to said they were unable to vote in Israeli elections. You said "no, they're able to, uhh, not vote in the case of those under Hamas and they're able to vote in elections held by the Palestinian authority in the case of those in the west bank." I don't know a ton about this, but I don't believe the Palestinian authority elections are the same as the Israeli elections. As I understand it, the right to vote is gated behind a citizenship process that is restrictive enough to generally prevent Palestinians from obtaining it.
> The person you're responding to said they were unable to vote in Israeli elections.
They said Palestinians are "a large portion of the Israeli population [that] is disenfranchised". That is a wrong statement. Palestinians are not part of the Israeli population and there is no expectation (on either side) that they would participate in Israeli elections. That issue has been largely settled by the Oslo framework in 1994.
> As I understand it, the right to vote is gated behind a citizenship process that is restrictive enough to generally prevent Palestinians from obtaining it.
I'm not sure which elections you mean.
- Israeli elections are for Israeli citizens. The 20% of Israelis who are Arab (sometimes loosely referred to as "Palestinians" as a loose synonym for "Arab living in former mandatory Palestine") can participate normally
- Palestinians in the West Bank vote in Palestinian elections. ' not aware of any citizenship-related restrictions there. Possible issues might be: logistics of getting to polls because of Israeli checkpoints; or simply the absence of elections (PA hasn't held a national election since 2006, although there are municipal elections).
- Specifically in East Jerusalem, on which Israeli claims sovereignty, Palestinians are classified as permanent residents of Israel. They may apply fot Israeli citizenship but that's probably a difficult process. As permanent residents they can vote in Israeli municipal elections, and as Palestinians they can vote in Palestinian national elections. But not being Israeli citizens they cannot vote in Israeli national elections. Perhaps that is what you're referring to?
> That issue has been largely settled by the Oslo framework in 1994.
A process that's alive and well, just like Yitzhak Rabin.
The peace process that Oslo initiated is certainly dead. But Oslo itself, as the last bilateral agreement between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, is de facto the law of the land, even though it was meant as an interim agreement. For better or worse...
This is like saying Australians are disenfranchised because they can't vote in New Zealand elections. They're not governed by Israel in any meaningful way.
It would be like if Native American tribes could not vote in American elections, but the federal government still controlled the ability for those nations to access the external world.
Correction: It is like saying Australians can't vote in general elections after being pushed out of 75% of the territory, except a small percentage who are tolerated in the major land since they won't make a difference.
The ostracized Aussies then can vote for their own leaders but will be blamed if they vote for the wrong ones and embargoed, regularly shot and even bombed from time to time to remind them who the place belongs to.
Counterpoint, Palestinians (many of whom were not alive in 2006, as they are children) are not exactly drenched in sovereignty at the moment.
I agree. But it is not Israel who is disenfranchising them - it is the Palestinian Authority (in West Bank) and Hamas (in Gaza).
Oh yikes, that is either the most ignorant or the least honest argument I've seen anyone make on this topic.
Shame on you.
In the absence of a counter-argument I can only assume that you don't have anything of substance to offer on this topic.
This is a little bit like arguing against someone saying the earth is flat, or that the sun isn't in the sky.
There's not really any point. They are too far gone.
Thank you for confirming that my assumption was correct.
Nakba.
Wow can you stop spreading misinformation.
Palestinians living in the Palestinian Territories are not Israeli citizens and cannot vote. I would say the Palestinian Territories are occupied, not part of Israel (though Bibi definitely has a sizable camp in his government that would love to make it so).
Do we expect occupied peoples to have a vote? sort of depends how you define democracy. Under an American interpretation (no taxation without representation, 1 person 1 vote) there’s a good argument that you should count occupied peoples.
It’s never so simple is it
> Under an American interpretation (no taxation without representation, 1 person 1 vote) there’s a good argument that you should count occupied peoples.
Palestinians are not taxed by Israel. They are taxed by the Palestinian Authority, and participate in Palestinian elections. So they do have representation - just not in Israel.
If we are talking about Democracy—which is where I started this—then yes. If occupied peoples don’t have representation in the government occupying them, yes, that’s very obviously less democratic than if they did. Quite literally by definition. This shouldn’t be controversial.
Prior to October 7th. Gaza was not occupied. Israel left in 2005.
Stop spreading misinformation.
I’m talking about Gaza and the West Bank. Israel blockading the Gaza is very obviously de facto governance.
If you can’t enter and leave your country freely, you don’t that autonomy.
I’m not even some Palestinian political advocate. We still cannot pretend that Israel isn’t effectively in control of the Palestinian Territories.
How many times were they offered statehood. How many times did they attack Israel? Why is there a wall? You know what happened when the wall went up and security blockades went in? The number of Palestinian suicide bombings dropped. Palestinians have decades of history of terrorism. They could have been like Singapore. But they chose terrorism.
Palestinians already have statehood: Palestine is a state, just like israel is a state. They are exactly equal in value and in their right to exist free from coercion by the other.
The issue is that israel is attacking, invading, occupying, annexing, and genociding the state of Palestine.
[dead]
Yes, but how many adults in land controlled by Israel are Israeli citizens?
The US is at “flawed democracy” in the Economist Democracy Index: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist_Democracy_Index
The US is a republic with some democratic institutions, but the economists index isn’t some platonic indicator that gets to define who’s a good government and who isn’t. Several of its higher ranking countries have outright banned extremely popular political parties in recent years.
Care to tell us what the politics of those parties were?
Because a functioning democracy would ban a nazi party.
So is France.
And both have a similarly executive-centric form of government where the president and the majority party hold a disproportionate amount of power. Although the US is even worse than France on this regard as far as I know.
I think it makes sense that both are categorised as flawed.
democracy is a lower form of government in the ancient world
I wonder who those critics were and what they were motivated by. (Rhetorical)
If you want to talk about rhetoric look at the idea of a “democracy index” - a score suggesting a scientific approach for determining how good/free a nation is.
We can play the “whose saying it game”, or look at the arguments. Democracy is rule by the lowest - and it’s easily manipulated by the popular. Buying votes, focus on the carnal, and immediate is a clear sign of democracy in decline.
I was more wondering about these emperors, kings, barbarians, and those in their influence who were casting aspersions at Athens. Why are we giving these historically incorrect people the time of day?
Once again, looking at incentives can help you find hidden motivations. But at some point you have to look at the arguments at see if they make sense or not.
The US founders didn’t believe in democracy. More people do today, mostly out of a sense that it’s moral obligation. Very few actually will argue it leads to better government outcomes.
I wouldn’t assume some any index from a magazine is the end all authority on what a nation state is.
I mean I can start my own magazine and create my own index however I want. Doesn’t mean it’s right.
I guess if your magazine's index reaches the height to have its wikipedia page, then, although it might not be right, but it will be pretty credible.
Anyone can have a Wikipedia page? There is no hurdle.
The US and Israel are elected governments, but that should certainly not presuppose democratic. The Roman Republic was, for example, fully elected but simultaneously it was intentionally autocratic to the elite. That is why it fell to a dictatorship which then increased the liberty and standards of the people.
Democracy is the directness by which social participation equates to governance. The US is a federal republic with only two parties each bound by the same hostile funding system that benefits political contributions over the vote. That is far from democratic.
Democracy and Republic both mean “normal people are in charge of government” and are in opposition to monarchy. The distinction you are referring to was a contrived interpretation in the federalist papers to make a point.
No. Democracy and republic are fundamentally different. You want to equivocate them because there is a vote. They have always been different going back to the Ancient Greeks and Romans who each invented those terms.
For democratically elected governments, doesn't regime change occur when any sitting politician loses the next election to their oponent?
In my thinking regime change doesn't only refer to the complete collapse of the political system, just change in direction of the leaders.
If the legislature changes party, that party —-“the regime” if we can use that term—- will be unseated from power.
> Iran has an unelected supreme leader
Had. Israel probably has a list with the next 3 or 4 in line to replace Khamenei and is currently working towards eliminating them, like they did with the Hezbollah.
Regime change could also be triggered through impeachment or PM losing support and government coalition getting dissolved in the case of Israel.
You still believe the US regimes will allow elections as the they know it?
> if polling holds.
And The Constitution.
> It is difficult to instigate regime change for democratically elected governments.
Just ask the folks who tried on January 6.
> The US will have significant regime change in November if polling holds.
Assuming elections are held fairly. "Trump, seeking executive power over elections, is urged to declare emergency":
* https://archive.is/https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2...
> Israel has a large portion of its population completely disenfranchised.
Does it?
The Israeli government has de facto control of large sections of the Palestinian Territories. The people in those territories, however cannot participate in the elections of that government.
The distinction being de jure and de facto control is something worth debating, but it’s trivially true that Israel controls large swaths of territory where people are not eligible to participate in that government.
Prior to October 7th this is simply not true.
It is very obviously true. Literally movement in the West Bank is controlled.
Consider the meanings of the following words:
- sovereignty
- border
- population
In that order, in the context of that region. Then consider their meanings in the context of (say) Canada. Consider how conventional applications of those terms are different for the two.
He said what he said.
don't know about Israel, but for the USA, it means "midterm is coming"
Did he stutter?
One can only dream.
It’s possible
Possible but unlikely. The midterms are going to get actually stolen by Republicans, 100%.
We can only hope.
I did not see the US butchering 30k protesters in 2 days.
And no, stop your American exceptionalism, ICE is not the same.
The US mostly isn't interested in butchering it's own citizens, slavery is the approach we went with À la the U.S. prison system.
We killed far more Indigenous Americans than that. I agree with you on the prison system though.
> The US mostly isn't interested in butchering it's own citizens, slavery is the approach we went with À la the U.S. prison system.
I hate to break it to you, but US prisons, while maybe worse than Scandinavian ones, are on par with France, and way better than like 70% of the world.
This is not a competition who has it worse. You can acknowledge terrible things that IR does without trying to portray yourself as a victim.
You are conflating issues. As a foregone conclusion the U.S. bombing the sovereign citizens of Iran is acceptable to you, only afterwards are you and other's justifying this by cherry picking recent events. If Iran hadn't just killed protesters, it'd be because they were working on nukes, or because they've launched missiles across borders.
You blind yourself to the dozens of countries around the world doing these things and worse every day while picking and choosing enemies that are acceptable for the United States to attack like al la carte menu items. Justifying those attacks is an after thought.
> on par with France
The US per-capita incarceration rate is ~5x that of France.
How is this related to what the person you’re replying to said?
They were responding to this:
> The US mostly isn't interested in butchering it's own citizens, slavery is the approach we went with À la the U.S. prison system.
To the extent that one is addressing slavery, the point is generally the number of the enslaved and not particularly their conditions (there is not a "good" way to own people).
> are on par with France, and way better than like 70% of the world.
French system is quite different from USA one. And the 70% of the world claim is based on what exactly?
[dead]
Your threshold for desiring regime change is the murder of 30,000 people?
Then israel is way past it…
Nah you just bully your allies and illegally tariff the entire world, no biggy
You didn't see anyone butchering 30k protesters in 2 days, because that didn't happen.
I did see. It is sad that you've decided to look away.
Look away from something that never happened?
It definitely did happen, it might have been 40k.
It definitely did not happen. If you're going to make a claim, you'll need to provide some proof.
Here you go: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_Iran_massacres
Protesters that took to the streets, according to what I read, because the US president said he would back them. Sounds like he led them to a slaughter to generate justification.
Protests started way before Trumps tweet.
Second, why are you legitimizing gunning down thousands of people?
I'm delegitimizing the US president saying things he can't back up, causing death, and getting the US into another war that the American people didn't ask for.
> I'm delegitimizing the US president
No. You are saying that these people died because of Trump's tweet, and not because the IR goons gunned people on the streets. Seems to me that you place the fault on Trump, rather than on those who pulled the trigger.
you, Trump & Satanyahu are not entitled to your own peaceful counter-revolution - if you want to overthrow the democratically elected government of Iran, you must bear the necessarily sacrifices
Ali Khamenei won one election and has sat there as a supreme leader ever since, that is not democracy. Deposing him is needed for democracy, there has been many protests against him.
Iran is not a democracy, it is a fake democracy since the supreme leader cannot be voted away.
> And no, stop your American exceptionalism
I don't think you intended to use this the way you did
True but a lot of people would like to see Netanyahu and Trump replaced with other leaders.
You don't understand: they are getting held in civil detention before being sent back to the country they came from on a chartered plane!
[flagged]
[flagged]
I'm so over the reddit shit on hn.
[flagged]
If you instigate a war you are responsible for all casualties.
I can understand that viewpoint, but the stories are reading as if the school was targeted.
I'll wait for some non-iranian confirmation.
[flagged]
There is nothing ideal about that outcome. The "regime change" people talk about is intended to look like what happened in Libya: A failed state that falls in anarchy.
> look like what happened in Libya: A failed state that falls in anarchy.
This comment just shows that you have no idea what Iran is, and how it differs from Libya.
Libya is a loose conglomerate of tribes. Iran majorly Persian that see themselves as one nation. Completely different dynamics.
It doesn't matter - when a strong and stable political structures suddenly collapse, the state fails and disintegrates due to the political infighting. While I agree with you that the chances of Iran becoming a completely failed state is unlikely, I do see an imminent civil war in Iran's future if a regime collapse happens, and the Americans and Israelis install their Shahi (royal) puppet there. A regime collapse will of course mean Iran will lose its sovereignty (probably for a decade or more), till a truly independent stable polity emerges form the ashes.
I could see the water crisis, notably absent here, being what tips it. Iran is facing water bankruptcy and acquifers / groundwater recharge takes decades to centuries.
Iranian regime is neither strong nor stable though. Or did you miss the recent round of nationwide protests that led to a desperate brutal crackdown?
That's just simplistic western propaganda. Sporadic protests, nationwide or otherwise, don't mean anything unless they are backed by long-term-opposition with strong grass-roots and singular political goals. Iran's regime remains strong and stable - it controls all the political institutions, it controls the civilian government at the local level, it controls the religious / cultural institutions, it controls the military and it has substantial support from the people. Why do you think Israel or the US isn't sending boots to the ground? Apart from the official military, the IRGC has a voluntary civil force, that can be armed by the Iranian military, in every district - if Israel or US send their soldiers to Iran, they will face a very brutal urban warfare with a high death toll.
> Iran's regime remains strong and stable - it controls all the political institutions, it controls the civilian government at the local level, it controls the religious / cultural institutions, it controls the military and it has substantial support from the people.
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.
All of that was true for Japan as well but it went very well there, so your analysis is flawed. The more organized a country is the easier it is to change it, the more primitive the harder it is.
> Iran majorly Persian that see themselves as one nation
This reductionist narrative is absolutely ridiculous and does not at all reflect reality.
You dont understand Iran either then
> minimally lethal
The US and Israel are involved. The only way it’s going to turn out is maximally lethal to all those not involved at all.
See… basically any military operation participated in by those nations in recent history.
We got a couple strikes and already managed to hit an elementary school. Nothing I’ve seen in Gaza or Iraq leads me to believe this will be any different.
Wouldn't you consider the Maduro capture a minimally lethal operation?
See Israel’s take down of Hezbollah.
Iraq? Afghanistan? Vietnam?
I don't think any of these were short.
Desert Storm was short. The second Iraq War, the stupid one, was not.
However, to be fair, Desert Storm hasn't resulted in regime change. The Coalition bombed the shit out of the Iraqi army, but never committed to the ground operation deep inside Iraq. And Saddam's regime survived until the next war.
That alone hints that it is very hard to bring a dictatorship down with just aerial attacks - the ground component is also essential. Something tells me it is going to be the same here.
Only a land operation or a total collapse of the government, with the armed police and military joining the opposition, can topple the Iranian regime.
> That alone hints that it is very hard to bring a dictatorship down with just aerial attacks.
This has been painfully obvious since aerial bombing became possible, but we’ve had so many generals and executives obsessed with the concept that it continues to be a core doctrine, like Kissinger and Curtis LeMay, neither of for whom I have anything but deep contempt.
Was Saddam's Iraq (post Desert Storm when he no longer had the ability to wage offensive war) really that bad compared to what came after?
For a large share of the population, yes, by a huge margin. For an even larger share, no, by a large margin.
Both regimes were deeply racist.
Anyway, I don't think that information entered on the US decision making in any way.
You mean immediately post Desert Storm when this happened? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Iraqi_uprisings
Counterexanple would be Venezuela
Are you sure? They removed one guy they didn't like but the regime remains.
What was the regime change there? The vice president is in charge.
Well, she started releasing lots of political prisoners. So it does seem like the regime acts a bit differently now?
That's because Desert Storm was launched by people who remembered the Second World War. Current wars are started by draft dodgers.
Desert storm didn’t attempt regime change. Iran is not currently invading anyone.
I'm glad someone else remembers. Desert Storm was fast (kind of) because it had a limited objective: Repel an invading army from another nation. It did not lead to an invasion (long term) of Iraq. Comparing any war with the objective of regime change to Desert Storm reveals that the commenter is grossly ignorant of recent history (36 years ago, it's not that far back to be so ignorant).
Desert Storm also wasn't really fast, it led to containment operations lasting a bit over a decade in total, ending only when we decided to invade Iraq with the objective of regime change and nation building. And that one, predictably, turned into a quagmire.
Desert Storm was mainly the US fighting for the Kuwaiti way of life.
This does not look like a smart one. A bit smarter would be to strike a month ago to support street protests.
It would have confused the Iranians as the regime would then claim that the foreign military attacks prove that the protests are artificially engineered by the same foreign enemy with the support of the Shah. It would also mean the automatic imposition of martial law in Iran, thus making protests even more difficult to organise.
You can’t be short, minimal lethal AND regime change. Gotta be pretty bloody to make that happen.
Unless like Venezuela. Or like 1953 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9ta...
Fomenting a coup is very different than toppling a regime through military force.
My biggest concern has always been that US military action against Iran would undermine domestic factions pushing for democratic reforms, at best leading to the installation of a different autocratic regime more amenable to US interests, at worst leading to a wellspring of support for the existing regime both internally, and externally in the form of alliances with other nations who stand to benefit from a reshuffling of the existing world order.
"At best leading to the installation of a different autocratic regime more amenable to US interests" seems like a pretty fine outcome in US eyes, doesn't it? Outside of Israel, is democracy in the Middle East even realistic?
An autocrat regime friendly to US interests, who we could do business with, who won't pursue nuclear weapons, and who won't imperil US allies or the Strait of Hormuz would be a drastic improvement over the current state of affairs.
We don't need to nation-build to have a good outcome for the US: that's something we should've learned after Iraq and Afghanistan.
Sure, and probably no worse for the world at large, or for the majority of Iranians.
An improvement over the current regime isn't exactly a high bar.
Even speaking as a someone who generally detests the policies of both Trump and the current Israeli administration, while I don't expect the entirety of the IRGC to go quietly into the night, I can't help but see the removal of the Ayatollah as a good thing.
As for the broader question of democracy in the Middle East, I believe the answer is yes, though not quickly or easily. But an independent, democratic Iran coexisting peacefully with Israel and the US, however unlikely, would certainly be a good start.
Nothing even close to regime change happened in Venezuela.
It's the same regime, but they now take orders from Marco Rubio.
Well hopefully this is short, minimally lethal, and leads to regime change for all those involved.
That would be ideal but unfortunately not likely. Nobody will like this comment but US ships are sitting ducks. They have minimal ammo per the pentagon and no oilers. No oilers and low ammo means no prolonged conflict. Only two of the ships are nuclear powered not counting submarines. Most of Iran's military and weapons are deep underground in a massive series of underground cities and tunnels. The US would require boots on the ground if they manage to breach the tunnel openings under the mountains. Should that fail the only viable targets are civilians and that won't win favor with anyone or accomplish anything.
Iranian military could just wait it out if they wanted and then smoke Israel with supersonic missiles when the US leaves. Then we find out if Israel does have the nukes for the Samson option and that would result in the destruction of Israel. Iran's military could survive a nuclear strike but would have to clean up the fallout and I am not sure they could. Anyone not underground would likely get Acute Radiation Sickness and Cancer.
On a positive note if the US can manage to get into the tunnels and send in enough munitions to start detonating the missile stockpile a chain reaction could crack all the concrete and collapse the tunnels. Satellite could detect which tunnel they try to evac from. They have less than 5 days to accomplish the chain reaction assuming this is the plan. From the videos I have seen the missiles are literally lined up like a double-strand fuse.
The US military has seldom had problems with the blowing up the enemy bit. It's providing peace and stability after that happens where they tend to run into problems.
The US military has seldom had problems with the blowing up the enemy bit.
True however AFAIK they have never once been in this situation. Iran has spent 40+ years digging in and hunkering down. There were plenty of bunkers in WWII but this is a whole new setup, deeper under mountains, higher quality concrete assuming they knew what they were doing and dug in much deeper. To get this done in 5 days will be quite a feet. If they manage to do it I will be very impressed.
It's providing peace and stability after that happens where they tend to run into problems.
I think you are correct, what happens afterwards is usually a crap-fest. That would require a lot of boots on the ground to maintain stability for a very long time. It's not a great example but Korea is one such example. The payoff may be worth it if many of the Iranian funded terror groups are drained of resources as a result. Keeping boots on the ground for years will require funding from congress. Short of that it will just be another power vacuum filled by yet another zealot. The "if's" are doing a lot of heavy lifting in my comment.
They don't necessarily have to kill all the Iranian military, just suppress internal security enough to where the Iranian people came rise up in rebellion. It's hard for the IRGC to suppress widespread protests/rebellion if they're constantly stuck hiding in bunkers and tunnels.
I imagine that's the strategy, anyway.
I think you are right. I imagine they take shifts. Some above, some below for R&R. IRGC have been offered immunity or certain death.
I think the crap-fest bit could go better with Iran. The Iranians are closer to European in culture than many places.
[Update]: It seems my dear leader is hitting all the cities... [1] I am not OK with this. Save the handful of leaders and scientists for ground recon instead of whacking all the citizens. Take out the missiles first. Most of the military and religious leaders are under ground. Take out those underground complexes and Iran is yours.
[1] - https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/2/28/us-and-israel-attac...
I wouldn't trust Al Jazeera here (or anywhere else) but "hitting all cities" doesn't really say much. If the attacks are going after the IRGC and the Basij then presumably you need to go after them fairly broadly. If the attacks are going at ballistic missiles and drones the same applied. The question is what are the targets and what's the plan. I'm sure they're going after those complexes as well.
> Take out those underground complexes and Iran is yours.
And how exactly would Iran be 'ours' without boots on the ground in this scenario?
Yes just like all the other places we have to maintain control congress would have to authorize boots on the ground, quite possibly for many years. Otherwise some other zealots just fill the voids.
I can't imagine a world where the US military only has the logistics for a five day offensive.
There are some factors - this is an offensive being done to prop up Netanyahu's regime in Israel and distract the Americans from the Espstein files. The US thus means to keep it short-term. Moreover, in the middle-east, the American logistic chain runs through its Arab allies in the middle-east, and Iran has explicitly said that it will not hesitate to target its Arab neighbours, hosting American military bases, if the US attacks it. (And that's why it has retaliated against these American allies when it was attacked). Except for Saudi Arabia, these countries do not wish to get into a war with Iran for Israel, and have no interest in joining the war because Iran's missiles are quite precise and effective at short ranges (meaning they and their people will be facing the brunt of the war that they have no interest in). Thus, the US military is actually hampered because it cannot do anything without the host governments permission. (For example, during the last Iran attack, some allies did not allow the US to implement a nationwide jam of the GPS over its airspace). All this highlights the really hard balancing the US has to do to even agree to bomb Iran for a few days - one wrong move and the whole of middle-east can explode, and both the US and Israel will find itself on the receiving end as American and world public opinion turns against it.
Related HN discussion [1]
[1] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47211487
It is odd. Trump has been receiving advice on Iran from General Dan Caine. It was suggested Caine warned of risks and limited munitions Trump refuted these stating Caine believes a conflict would be easily won. Other senior officers were in shock that he said this could be done. The pentagon objected due to the lack of ammo and oilers. This is one case where I wish he would listen to the senior officers with substantial experience instead of the guy that often agrees with him.
As perfectly echoed by Bob Dylan's Highway 61 song.
"Now the rovin’ gambler he was very bored / He was tryin' to create a next world war / He found a promoter who nearly fell off the floor / He said I never engaged in this kind of thing before / But yes I think it can be very easily done / We'll just put some bleachers out in the sun / And have it on Highway 61"
Yeah, the possibility of a regime collapse / change due to this military action is unlikely. The military goal seems to be to destroy Iran's military-industrial complexes to hamper its missile production. Note however that while Iran has potent missile capability, Iran's underground complexes where it is stored presents its own problems - in the absence of adequate air defence and an Air Force, its enemies can just bomb the openings of these underground complexes, making it very, very difficult for the Iranians to use its missile arsenals from there. (This is what Israel did the last time). As for the scenario you outlined, I highly doubt the US would be willing to send boots to the ground to blow up their missiles manually - urban warfare takes a heavy toll and I doubt if the Trump administration can withstand the criticism if body bags start coming home. Even the MAGA crowd has been unexceptionally hostile to Trump's attack on Israel.
I highly doubt the US would be willing to send boots to the ground to blow up their missiles manually - urban warfare takes a heavy toll and I doubt if the Trump administration can withstand the criticism if body bags start coming home.
You could be entirely right. Honestly I hope you are right. We lost far too many in Iraq and Afghanistan. I was probably just being cynical. I trust the decisions of the senior leaders in the military but their commander and chief tends to trust the wrong advice.
The only possible correction I might add is the Air Force probably will not drop bombs but would have to fire missiles. The openings are on the sides of mountains and require horizontal access or I suppose incredibly massive bombs. Earth shattering bombs. Something closer to tactical nukes which the US has not stockpiled in a long time AFAIK.
What yt channel?
It's hard to find them now with all the AI slop being propped up but the best search terms may be "Iranian tunnel bunkers full of missiles". It is mostly YT channels run out of India. The oldest video I have seen was from CNN ten years ago. Iran will occasionally let journalists see their latest tunnel.
This is a short one showing the 2nd to last generation of tunnels. [1] The latest tunnels are painted white including some that are under water. The older tunnels are not painted and one can see what appears to be reinforced concrete. When completed every tunnel is lined on both sides with missiles. This one [2] shows a couple generations of the tunnels. Found the old CNN video. [3]
[1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YQ1R7ZAKxE [video][1m]
[2] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQtSPFrnKvo [video][5m25s]
[3] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_Gu_TjmV0E [video][2m12s]
Seriously? Those videos look like they were made with Blender
Quite possibly. All of the propaganda films I've seen in the last decade look like they were generated and staged on a very low budget and in a hurry.
I know you won't believe me here but dude you are absolutely full of shit
I clear it out with Cheesecake and Beer. I'll save some for you my friend.
Won't there be boots on the ground? We already bombed their facilities and at the time they said best that bombs can do is fuck up the entrance to these tunnels.
There is no such thing but I guess the US still has not learned this after so many conflicts.
Regime change is not the same thing as a "forever war". I don't think you read the post that you replied to.
> Minimally lethal
“Israel strikes two schools in Iran, killing more than 80 people”
https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2026/2/28/israel-strikes-...
Welp, better luck next time
This reminds me of the Al-Ahli hospital incident in Gaza, when a mysterious explosion at a hospital was immediately blamed on an Iraeli strike - first by Hamas, then by the international press. A precise death toll was immediately available: 500 killed. Israel urged caution as they investigated, but were ignored.
Eventually, it was established that 1) the casualty number had been a fabrication, 2) the explosion was in the parking lot, 3) it was NOT caused by an Israeli strike, but by a Palestinian Islamic Jihad rocket that had fell short.
Soon the press was forced to issue corrections - New York Times [1] , Le Monde [2], BBC [3]...
This incident looks VERY similar. Which is not surprising, since Hamas was trained in information warfare by the IRGC. Note that Al Jazeera (the media arm of Qatar, who funds Hamas and hosts their leaders in Doha) is enthusiastically amplifying this story with no apparent effort to cross-examine Iran's official source.
I predict that this story will turn out to be fabricated as well.
UPDATE: preliminary reports from the OSINT community seem to indicate that the story was indeed a fabrication... https://x.com/tarikh_eran/status/2027784301840846939
[1] https://www.poynter.org/commentary/2023/the-new-york-times-e...
[2] https://www.lemonde.fr/international/article/2023/10/24/a-no...
[3] https://deadline.com/2023/11/bbcs-international-editor-grill...
What the comment fails to mention is that Al-Shifa hospital was ultimately destroyed by Israeli forces, with grave civilian casualties, and no Hamas tunnels ever found: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Shifa_Hospital
The Wikipedia article you link says that Hamas tunnels were found under the hospital, and did have entrances near the hospital, but that no proof was provided that they were using the hospital and nearby tunnels as a 'command and control' centre.
My comment is about Al-Ahli, not Al-Shifa. Those are two different hospitals.
> Al-Shifa hospital was ultimately destroyed by Israeli forces
It was damaged by a series of battles between Hamas and IDF, because Hamas militants embedded themselves within it - like they embedded themselves within all civilian infrastructure. That is the reality of urban war against a terrorist group.
> with grave civilian casualties
Hamas alleged grave civilian casualties. Israel contests it. Again, just like the Al-Ahli incident, Hamas rushes to publish suspiciously precise casualties and reframes an urban battle as a genocidal massacre; naive newsrooms uncritically publish it; wikipedia editors quotes it; then people with an axe to grind endlessly reference it in online arguments like this one.
With Al-Ahli, we got lucky. Independent evidence made it impossible to ignore that Hamas was lying. In many other cases, it is impossible to independently verify how many civilians were truly killed in this or that battle. You have to either believe the IDF, or Hamas.
> and no Hamas tunnels ever found
Al-Shifa was controlled by Hamas and used as a military facility. Hostages were held there. After the ceasefire, Hamas used it as a jail and torture center for Palestinian dissidents.
Or do you believe Israel sent troops inside a hospital in a warzone, at great risk to their safety, to destroy a random hospital with no military value?
The Palestinian rocket story was never confirmed, and it seems unlikely that the rockets from PIJ were the cause. Their ballistic trajectory did not match with the hospital, and most or all their fuel had burned [1]. I recommend you read the whole text, it's quite short.
In other words, the new "established facts" about Al-Ahli are also questionable, and part of Israeli propaganda. It remains to be seen what the truth is in either case.
The fact of the matter is. Eventually Israel destroyed a fuckton of hospitals and schools in Palestine, on purpose. So this particular story in itself does not really matter.
[1] https://forensic-architecture.org/investigation/israeli-disi...
> Analysis of the area shows the school is in a middle of a military area full of IRGC bases.
Isn’t the far more likely explanation here that they (Israel / US) tried to strike an IRGC base and missed?
Based on previous American wars in the middle east wouldn't you say that's unlikely?
u sweet summer child.
2 countries with the best war technologies on earth must work together to have a war with embargod-country-for-decades. And those 2 counties are founder of Board of Peace.
The reason it is hard is not due to a power balance. Both of those countries could have sent nukes with minimal efforts.
But their goal is targeted and precise attacks, that effectively destroy targets based on specific, and high quality intelligence.
The other part is that defense against missiles is significantly harder and more expensive than sending missiles. Iran, while relatively poor, has dedicated a significant part of its economy for missile development and production.
> their goal is targeted and precise attacks
Day one and they've already bombed a school and killed dozens of children. The goals, strategy and tactics have not been clearly communicated. You can pray they are using high quality intelligence, but history tells us they are not at all concerned with collateral damage. They likely want to degrade Iran's military capabilities, but they also want them cowed and bleeding.
Israel is interested in the fall of the Iranian regime, a thing that can only happen if the Iranian people will rebel against it. The last thing Israel wants is to have the Iranians rally behind the state’s flag.
Based on this cold calculation, bombing a school full of children would be counter productive, even if you believe the Israelis are just collecting children's blood to make matzahs (passover is just around the corner!).
On a more serious note, do you know the actual source for this claim? I don’t mean the news outlet, I mean what entity gave this to the news outlet.
> Israel is interested in the fall of the Iranian regime, a thing that can only happen if the Iranian people will rebel against it.
I personally don't believe in such appeals to rationality of parties waging wars. The issue is: if you wage a war, you can't control precisely what is going on. No one can. Like MH17 was shot down by pro-Russian separatists: who was interested in it? No one was, but still MH17 was shot down.
Israel bombed schools, it probably did it without clear intent to bomb them, but at the same time it means it is not very concerned about a couple of hundred of underage causalities. Like it was (and it is) not at all concerned about Palestinian causalities in Gaza. Moreover to my mind, it is the strategic stance of Israel: to be as brutal as possible to make neighbors to fear Israel. Israel does it for decades, it does it every time it wages a war. It means that now it just cannot wage a war without demonstrations of brutality. Even if it wanted to it just cannot, because on all levels of command people were taught to demonstrate brutality, and they were not taught how to wage war surgically. You can't overcome such a training on so many levels with a carefully crafted prompt.
> do you know the actual source for this claim? I don’t mean the news outlet, I mean what entity gave this to the news outlet.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/2/28/israel-strikes-two-...
"Mizan News Agency, the judiciary’s official news agency, reported the death toll..."
"Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi shared a photo of the attack, which..."
Ok, so the Iranian regime itself published this news? And you don’t even question it?
Seems like we’re on such polar ends, there’s no hope in discussion.
> Ok, so the Iranian regime itself published this news? And you don’t even question it?
I question everything, and in this case I'm choosing to believe it. Such fakes are hard to forge, and as recent history shows such news are not fakes. Look at Russia which claimed that it did nothing wrong for how many times? Russia all the time tried to declare that everything is a fake forged by Ukraine. And if we look at what Ukraine did to Russia, we can't find a single example of a fake news forged by Russia.
A priori probability of this being a fake is low, and if you look into it, it is a pretty good "fake". No one still questioned it, while you can see some news from Iran that are clearly anti-regime news.
So, no, without clear evidence for this being a fake, I believe it is not a fake.
It's all over. NY Times writeup points to multiple sources and videos of destruction that they have authenticated. I don't think any body count has been independently verified.
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/28/world/middleeast/iran-sch...
Why would you doubt this? Have you not seen what Israel has done in Palestine and Lebanon?
You are relying on unreliable news sources, the strikes are incredibly precise. See the aerial photo of Khamenei's residence that was bombed [1]. You can see how the surrounding area remains surprisingly clean in face of the utter destruction in the middle.
https://www.reddit.com/r/war/comments/1rh2f41/the_residence_...
So in your mind a picture post from a 6 day old Reddit account is a reliable news source?
One nice thing about Reddit, is that if someone posts fake news, people refute it (which is not the case in this post). So there is active fact checking in place.
That photo is taken directly from AP news reporting, taken by Airbus.
Why not link to the AP then? https://apnews.com/live/live-updates-israel-iran-february-28...
Reddit is a shithole, even more so after it went public a year ago..
Anyway, I don't think the AP pictures are too convincing. Sure it might look like smoke in there, but it looks more like the entire right side of the image was carpetbombed - not just the building complex in the middle
Bored of Peace.
To obliterate a nuclear program that they claimed was totally obliterated last year
while repeating the claim that Iran is a week from having a bomb....the same claim the nutty yahoo has made for nearly 3 decades now.
Well. Iran gets a lot of weapons from Russia which spends a whole lot of their GDP producing weaponry.
Come on, you haven't lived if you were a high school senior and didn't stuff a bunch of middle schoolers in lockers with your bros for fun.
yes, yes. Poor Iran.
My greater concern is the people of Iran. Especially since Iran has conscription so the people who end up dieing in a war didn't even consent to being made soldiers.
Maybe the Iranian people would be thrilled to get some weapons.
Agreed.
http://lifegoesonintehran.com/
Yes. Poor Iran.
Because America and Israel.
Iran are the good guys?
What topsy-turvy land have I wandered into?
They've funded Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis for decades. They've assassinated dissidents on foreign soil. They sentence people to death for apostasy and flog women for not wearing hijab correctly.
The sanctions aren't about race. They're about behaviour.
> Iran are the good guys?
Nobody said that. But they are a sovereign country that did not attack America. Bombing them because you find their internal politics distasteful is appalling, to say the least.
> find their internal politics distasteful is appalling
you call their official slogan "Death to America, Death to Israel" - distasteful internal politics?
That’s not why they’re being bombed. They’re being bombed because they strive for nukes and ICBMs with ever larger range, all the while calling “death to america”.
P.S. downplaying their behavior to “distasteful”, is, well, distasteful.
Iran getting nukes would stabilize the region.
[flagged]
There are no "good guys" in real-life. If you as an individual revile proxy conflict, assassination of dissidents abroad, torture and summary execution, then it's hard to stand on the American soapbox and demand change. Many Iranians still remember SAVAK, and are told stories of the last time they tried nationalizing their resources.
The US doesn't need an interventionist policy with Iran any more than we need to invade North Korea. Israel needs it though, and their entire strategy is to risk American lives for their meaningless expansion campaign.
I keep being amazed at how people believe this expansion fairytale
Why? Is the international condemnation of occupied territories fake news?
No, the condemnation is real…
>Iran are the good guys?
No. But they are a sovereign nation who didn't directly bomb the US or its allies.
>They've funded Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis for decades. They've assassinated dissidents on foreign soil. They sentence people to death for apostasy and flog women for not wearing hijab correctly.
You want to know who the US has funded? You want to know who Israel has funded?
I mean, shit, the US took out Iran's democratically elected government in the 1970s and was a huge fan of the Mullahs because they let us steal Iranian oil. The same secular Iranian government that was quite literally the first middle eastern country to recognize the existence of Israel, and was a leading secular state in a region of ass-backwards religious nutcases.
Israel has refused to acknowledge the obvious existence of its nuclear weapons program while Iran is a full member of the IAEA and allows for full international inspection of its uranium facilities.
Fuck, the Israelis engage in massive blackmailing operations of their own "allies" (see Epstien, Jeffrey) , attack their own "allies" (see USS Liberty attack), and have tried to goad its "allies" into carrying out attacks on their behalf. They are a tiny bully that starts shit they cannot handle themselves, and American lives are sacrificed because of it.
Israel is not threatening to annihilate any country, while Iran is vowing to.
How can you even make this comparison?
> Israel is not threatening to annihilate any country
Oh man, are you gonna get a shock when you look at the news from the past 3 years.
That's because Israel didn't threaten to destroy a country, they simply did so and called anyone who dared question their methods antisemitic.
> 2 countries with the best war technologies on earth must work together to have a war with embargod-country-for-decades
It gives us a regional coalition partner. That's never a bad thing, regardless of circumstances.
I'd say being an apartheid state and conducting a live-streamed genocide could possibly be a minor issue. Just a PR issue mind, Lord knows we've given up on our souls long ago.
> conducting a live-streamed genocide
For what it's worth, I think the American activists on this issue bungled the messaging to disastrous effect (in the same way we bungled criminal-justice reform). It's a saturated issue with low political salience outside a specific (and increasingly constrained) demographic.
A win in Iran will be a short-term boost, in America and in Israel. Then we'll go back to being pissed about rising prices.
The activism worked. Polling shows that support for Israel is dwindling especially among the younger population.
When it comes to Israel, polling was always lower in younger populations, although yes - the trend worsened.
Israel chose to trade popularity for having real geopolitical gains on the ground. Popularity could be won back later, but removing the Iranian ring of fire around it is a real and tangible achievement that would last decades and change the Middle East.
You make it sound as if Israel merely made a few PR blunders.. They’ve killed 10s of thousands of Palestinian children.
This is not salvageable without justice and accountability.
> You make it sound as if Israel merely made a few PR blunders.. They’ve killed 10s of thousands of Palestinian children.
> This is not salvageable without justice and accountability.
Do Palestinians have to be held accountable for their actions?
No. Any other questions, or do you want to just continue feigning interest in having an actual conversation?
> No. Any other questions, or do you want to just continue feigning interest in having an actual conversation?
This is an actual question. It seems to me that you only care about Arabs dying. Jews can die left and right in the hands of Arabs and you won’t blink an eye. Am I correct?
I just want to clarify it for others who reads your comments to see.
Assume whatever helps you move on from replying to me. I recognize your username btw.
Your silence speaks louder than a 1000 words.
A slow, 100 year genocide plan.
OR
Violent resistance to said plan.
Idk, I wouldn't judge Palestine either, especially if Israel is immune to any kind of repercussions.
[dead]
You should respond to him, he has a good point.
Why not?
[flagged]
Yes, they did and still do target children.
We’ve all seen videos of Israeli soldiers shooting kids that are running away from them in the back.
Yes, murder cases for each act of crime against humanity. Yes, Nuremberg style trials for the leaders of the genocide.
They also literally started this attack with a bombing of a girl's school in Iran: https://x.com/ME_Observer_/status/2027787999409266991
That’s not even real, just bullshit used to influence public opinion in the West.
It's real. Pick your reporting outlet: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=iran+school&t=brave&ia=news&iar=ne...
Even pro-Israel media outlets such as these are reporting it.
They all cite the same "Iranian state media" report.
Which is clearly credible enough to report on.
[flagged]
Not really sure what to say here. Maybe it’s a lack of empathy or imagination because the victims are Palestinians?
Perhaps a good thought experiment would be to swap out Israel and Palestine with some other similar (real or fictional) conflict to help you think through your apparent confusion.
Define 'younger populations', millenials are in their 40s now...
About a third of American Jews now agree that Israel is an apartheid state and committing genocide against Palestinians.
It remains to be seen what impact this will have, but it will certainly impact the ability for everyone to claim that criticism of Israel and sympathy for Palestinians is motivated by antisemitism.
The democrats lost the last election in part because of their stance on Israel.
With a bit of luck this could lead to a shift in policy within a generation.
American "activists" (didn't know being anti-genocide was a fringe belief but here we are) clearly won the narrative. Most Americans now oppose what Israel is doing in Gaza and want all support to this country to stop ASAP. This support for Israel cost Harris the election, as shown in their latest post-mortem of the 2024 election, and is making Trump and his administration ever more unpopular.
Sure, it's the activists' fault. Not the people who committed this genocide in our government.
[flagged]
Killing kids on camera, burning people in hospitals alive, running them over in bulldozers is pretty much genocide. You can easily find these videos on internet (I don't recommend watching them even if you watch cartel beheadings for fun)
No, these things do not constitute a genocide. Genocide is the purposeful extermination of a people. What you’re describing are other alleged war crimes. While it’s a catchy and horrifying word that’s very useful against Israel, it’s dishonest to use it in this case.
All the things you described are indeed horrifying on their own, and I believe there are cases where Israeli forces did some of these things unjustifiably.
You must be asking yourself what the hell could be justified. Well, I’ve heard first accounts of kids being sent first as scouts in the battlefield, into a kill box, trying to pinpoint Israeli forces. Once the scout goes back and reports on the force’s location, an accurate barrage of RPGs will be shot at them. You can’t go into the kill box to stop them by arresting them. What would you have done? I do not envy the person that has to make that call, they are now scarred for life.
Justified? No? You pick between the life of that kid and the lives of the people under your command. Both choices are bad, this isn’t Hollywood.
Most of what you watch is edited purposefully and doesn’t give you any context for the purpose of recruiting the public opinion. It’s working amazingly.
Plenty of israeli leaders are very open about what should be done with Amalek
But you are right, the real victim is the guy who magdumped a child on camera, he is scarred for life
These populists, so called leaders, don't represent everyone and are hated by many. In war everyone loses, and you seem to ignore the fact that there are two sides here. Normative people don't wake up in the morning wanting to murder children for fun. Your cartoonish image of Israelis as some kind of horned monsters is ridiculous.
I keep hearing that Israel is the only democracy of Middle East. And they keep getting elected, which means they are not some kind of extremists, but represent opinion of general population
> Most of what you watch is edited purposefully
And what you watch is unabridged truth?
The American/Israeli media empire is 100x larger than anything Hamas can disseminate. The "media is dishonest" excuse doesn't apply to Hamas any more than it does to the Israeli Military Censor: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_Military_Censor
I don't watch, I talk to real people who are first hand witnesses. Second, Israel doesn't own any media empire, what exactly do you mean? Third, Hamas doesn't need to dismantle any media organization, they got Qatar with their own world wide media empire of AlJazeera.
> It gives us a regional coalition partner. That's never a bad thing, regardless of circumstances.
You missed the point. The fact that it requires two of them to gang up on Iran says something about how capable Iran is in defending itself.
No it doesn't. No military power, however overpowered compared to its opponents, will ever say no to an even more unfair beatdown.
I don't think they can accomplish their goal even with that. I will be very surprised by regime change.
Iran was likely going to do that themselves by the massive inflation they caused through reckless financial policies such as Venezuelan style price controls. Russia is managed to weather sanctions decently, Iran's economic leadership is far more incompetent despite being a petrol state. Even in Tehran they can't get enough water because of the failure of infrastructure and planning (despite plenty of money being available for certain failed regional military projects).
There was a study showing almost every revolution happened not because of ideology but over the price of bread.
> There was a study showing almost every revolution happened not because of ideology but over the price of bread.
His name was Marx. ;)
Yeah. We'll see. Under what conditions will you consider yourself right or wrong? My prediction is after killing a few more heads of state, disabling some more striking capability that they'll back off under pressure from the Arab states. Trump will declare it as a victory regardless of what happens and everyone will forget about it. Iran will eventually rebuild itself as it just did, but this time it will take longer (Trump even said that himself, contradicting himself earlier).
Even if Trump doesn't care, Israel is very motivated to make regime change happen. They want to be permanently rid of Iran's nuclear threat, its funding of terrorist groups, all of it. Honestly I think Trump or at least his administration is on a similar page, and if not the Israelis can clearly be pretty persuasive.
No, my worry is whether it will be a regime change that benefits the Iranian people or some kind of sick puppet state. But of course:
> Trump will declare it as a victory regardless of what happens
...This goes without saying.
Edit: worth noting the Arab states tend to hate Iran as well, and Iran has already sprinkled some ballistic missiles on them just in this war. They're not going to speak up for Iran unless they think the escalation is getting too dangerous for themselves.
> Even if Trump doesn't care, Israel is very motivated to make regime change happen.
It doesn't matter. There are zero cases in history of successful regime change by air only. Iran, of all countries, has an extremely robust succession plan and at a last resort the IRGC itself will take over.
> Iran has already sprinkled some ballistic missiles on them just in this war
I can see you're not following this too seriously.
You didn't give objective criteria for how to judge whether you're right or wrong yet.
You should follow more seriously which usernames you're talking to. But as far as objective criteria, if a regime change happens I don't expect it to be subtle or debatable. Seeing the IRGC disbanded would be a pretty solid signal, though.
Obviously it's not going to be done 100% from the air. The Iranian people will have to play a big role. I just hope they manage to seize initiative from Trump and Netanyahu as far as how their government is run.
I do note that we've strayed a bit from the thesis of "Iran is so powerful Israel and the US have to gang up on it". :D
> You should follow more seriously which usernames you're talking to.
Eh, shit happens.
Sure. Anyway, did you have a factual critique of my statement about Iran throwing ballistic missiles around the Middle East, or did you just find my tone insufficiently serious?
Ok. So we have just taken out all of Israel's foes with force. They are safe now right? We can stop supporting them militarily in every way now right? They no longer need any weapons, intelligence support, defense support, etc, right? If this is the right path to their long term safety then this must be true.
America / Israel's partnership goes a lot deeper, it started in the cold war, and it's quite interesting. It heightened significantly after 9/11, where Israel spied (and still does) on all of America's enemies to prevent another 9/11, doing a lot of dirty work, giving intel as part of a partnership. I can't imagine both countries ever wanting to get rid of that partnership. This part of the equation is often left out in the conversation, presumably because it's hush hush ultimately.
Pretty sure killing all the enemies just turns the rest of the world into enemies.
This is the gist of Israel's problem. Successful tactically, but no long term strategy. They're increasingly isolated. As Baby Boomer voters lose power in US, Israel's isolation will become more obvious.
The long-term strategy is peace & stability.
Before you ask "how's that going", remember that doing nothing wouldn't result in a satisfactory answer to that question either.
The idea that "killing the enemies turns the rest of the world into enemies" is absurd. Other countries wouldn't follow the Iranian regime into martyrdom. What would be the reason: "we don't like war"?
Nobody likes war, but also nobody likes evil dictators emerging on this planet and repressing 90 million of its inhabitants, and waging industrial scale terrorism offensives beyond its borders.
In history class, we asked the teacher why the British killed these rebels and exiled those rebels. The rebels who led an army and killed many were exiled while the rebel who only had one kill was hung in the middle of his village and left to rot as an example.
She sat they killed some of those rebels, it would have sparked more rebellions. The difference was political power, even in defeat. Mercy is a big part of survival.
It's a bit like law enforcement. If there's no police, criminals are everywhere. If there's too many police, corruption becomes the standard, along with police brutality and profiling. You can never get it down to zero, just low enough.
To be fair, nobody likes Iran
Neither Israel.
Apparently many countries like Israel more than Iran.
Or rather the US likes Israel and most countries fear the US.
The comment is so out of touch. Even Chineses and Russians are disgusted by Iran's culture e.g. how they treat women and many others. Then, there's the saying "you know who Islam hates more than the jews and christians? other slightly different Islam groups."
And these countries are supposed to be Iran's closest allies due to having a common enemy.
Iran was/is Russian ally. Very prominent part of Russia is Chechnya. It is islamic and its leader is effectively Putins favorite pet. It is not as bad as Iran in treatment of women, but it is also not like Russia would care one bit about that.
Russians and Chineses and anyone really absolutely care about who they form alliances with.
Not sure where you get the idea that people don't care who they are friend with. They absolutely don't want to be friend whose culture is considered as disgusting.
They may form an alliance due to having a common enemy but in practice the alliance is just checking a box.
Iranian regime was the entire middle east’s foe, including Irans. Speak to your local Persian.
If by local you mean an émigré, they might be the worst person to ask.
You need to learn your history. The Iranian people have lived under oppressive authoritarianism for 40 years since the Iranian revolution.
Putting it lightly, many Iranian (within Iran) do not support the current regime. Especially not the educated.
People inside iran are echoing the same sentiments as the emigres.
For sure a lot of people in Iran hate the regime. But given their 40 or so years of rule, I doubt they could achieve that without a strong basis.
And yeah Iranians out of Iran definitely hate it too.
To take a break from breaking havoc in Gaza, there was an israeli incursion into Lebanon (which included a fantastic supply chain attack) Then they tried to pick a fight in Siria for some BS reason (intervening Siria for protecting some jew friendly faction inside Siria, a la Russia protecting russiansnin Ukraine), then went to Iran, then continued milling Gaza, and now we are back at Iran, again.
No, support will never falther.
>intervening Siria for protecting some jew friendly faction inside Siria, a la Russia protecting russiansnin Ukraine
It was the Druze and they were actually being killed.
"The friend of my enemy deserves to die" is not an attitude you have to adopt, even if you disagree with the Israeli response to the killings.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_2025_massacres_of_Syrian...
No, it is you saying someone deserves to die. I correctly stated Israel is invading another country for any reason which is not national security. It is the exact same sht with Russia in Ukrained because Israel also appropiated of Sirian territory.
Israel has enough genocide at home, no need to invade other countries
Have you never seen the word Syria spelled out?
Noted. My brain hadn't adapted to the [appropiate] spelling when typing on a phone screen.
Go to the wikipedia page for Syria and click the dropdown for other languages
AIPAC says hi
Peace president ah? American terrorists never learn to mind their own business in their own country. Where are all the MAGA clowns?
How exactly attacking Iran make their country great? Murdered million children in Iraq and now they started their terrorism in Iran.
I don't think this is terrorism, that's not what the word means. It's a clear and open act of war, so in many ways much worse, but somehow terrorism is a scarier word.
Murdering million children in Iraq, now attacking school in Iran, 2 million people dead in Ukraine, regime change operations across the world, military and economic interventions across the world.
English is not my first language. If you got a better word other than American terrorists and American terrorism, then suggest me one.
Dead Ukrainians are Russia and only Russia fault.
> but somehow terrorism is a scarier word.
It is, because it might impact normal citizens. Nobody has ever invaded US so coensequences of real war are unknown to most.
> Nobody has ever invaded the US
That's not technically true, seeing as how Washington DC was captured and burned in 1814. But it's at least true for modern times.
We’ve just recently been invaded by a fascist coup of white nationalists funded by the Epstein class and are dying a slow death from within tbf.
Some Iranian kids in Iran celebrating, I think https://x.com/shadygrooove/status/2027667467456442730
I know of at least 80 Iranian kids today who aren't in position to celebrate.
you know them personally? or are they just black canvas bags full of sand?
Peace president ah?
Yes, the USA and Israel are putting an end to a 47 year war of Iran vs. Everyone. There will be casualties on every side, that is war. Iran made the middle east into a giant PVP server. That is coming to an end.
I had several conversations IRL about how they wouldn't vote for Kamala because she was the more "pro war" candidate. smdh
[dead]
[flagged]
This is also a good deal for the Iranian government since they can transfer hatred people had for them to the America and Israel. No one will see Trump as salvation and the “rally behind the flag” phenomena in times of invasion applies just as much to Iran as it does to the USA.
> Iranian media now report 40 killed and 48 students injured following the strike on a girls’ elementary school in Minab, as rescue and recovery efforts continue.
Congrats America!
As an Iranian-American that's familiar with the regime, I would take that with a grain of salt. I saw this being reported from the Iranian regime themselves and they know how to manipulate optics and media really well. It's possible, but needs verification. I would also not put it past Iran to build their military infrastructure around schools intentionally (similar to Hamas with hospitals) in the hopes that it has this exact effect. Of course that does nothing to take away from the tragedy of innocent people dying and I'm not trying to negate that in any way, just something to point out.
100%. In another comment [1] I drew a parallel with the Al-Ahli hospital incident in Gaza. Once you understand basic information warfare tactics, they're easy to spot. Why newsrooms still fall for it so easily is the real mystery...
I bet this story is a fabrication as well.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47199047
Why are you religiously defending Israel?
And you already bet this story is a fabrication as well.
This is exactly who media takes advantage of not the one who waits for investigation and acts rationally.
If going by your recent comments, I can say I bet you're just an Israeli propagandist. Would you be happy with that assesment?
Iran tends to lie about these things while Israel usually says the truth, at least after running an investigation. It's pretty simple: one is a dictatorship without free media, and the other one isn't. It's easy to lie when you can tell the newspapers what to write, and it's much harder when they're doing their job. You want an example? Khamenei. Iran says he's safe and wasn't hurt. Israel says he's dead. Let's see.
> while Israel usually says the truth, at least after running an investigation
You can't be serious about that statement. At best it reflects overwhelming naivete about how governments (let alone those engaged in war) work. At worst, its a deliberate attempt at misinformation.
haha
[dead]
You being Iranian-american bares no weight on your opinion
The idea is that criticism of Iran from an Iranian-American would have more merit. However, we have no way to confirm the validity of this claim. It could very well be someone pretending to be an Iranian-American.
In my experience, I find people who are "former ABC-ian" to actually be very heavily biased, if not outright lying about ABC. Mentally, I'd say it's worth less weight than someone with no information.
They left because they were unhappy with things. The former British folks are enraged about human rights abuses and societal collapse in Britain. The ex-Christians will rarely praise the Bible.
Not that there's zero weight, it's still a perspective to consider. But it has to be fact checked thoroughly.
why should it not?
why?
You don't think someone from a country might know a bit more about it than the average person on HN?
Easy, it was Israel that probably did it and it's been shown time and time again that they can do this without political fallout under the guise that the target was a hiding spot for the military assets of Iran (or Hamas in the case of Palestine bombing).
> Easy, it was Israel that probably did it and it's been shown time and time again that they can do this without political fallout under the guise that the target was a hiding spot for the military assets of Iran (or Hamas in the case of Palestine bombing).
Are you claiming that Iran (or Hamas) site their military bases away from schools (or hospitals)?
No he's saying that israel intentionally bomb schools and hospitals
> No he's saying that israel intentionally bomb schools and hospitals
Maybe they do, but this is also fairly common and cannot be ruled out at this early stage: https://nitter.net/pic/orig/media%2FHCQpcrMbkAAz6Vw.jpg
The problem you have when you try to shield your armed forces with civilians is that you then place those civilians in danger.
What do you expect will happen when an armed force uses civilians as shields? It's not a rhetorical question, I really want to know what you expect an attacking force to do. Stop attacking?
It's been shown time and time again that the world will eat up any propaganda against Israel without waiting to hear any facts at all.
Those videos of Israeli soldiers raping prisoners, beating prisoners, spitting on or beating people just walking in the streets.
Yeah, so much propaganda. We can see it with our own eyes.
It's been shown time and time again that some people will eat up Israeli propaganda and completely ignore facts and abject reality.
Update: AP news reports that deaths at girls school has now risen to 148.
https://apnews.com/live/us-israel-strikes-iran-khamenei-03-0...
"Iranian prosecutor says..." deserves minimal trust.
That said, if the US/Israel didn't do it, we'd have heard a denial by now. Perhaps the target was a nearby military site. Placing military sites next to schools sounds like a tactic from the Hamas Resistance handbook.
There are plenty of schools on US bases in and outside of America. I live by one right now.
I was curious if America's largest base, Fort Bragg, has any elementary schools in it. I found at least 1.
https://poolees.dodea.edu/school-about-us
Fair point, I take back my last remark about placement of schools near bases. God I wish the Iranian regime would just surrender, it would be so much better for everyone. Look at Hamas, they refused to surrender and the result was colossal death and misery.
Iran regime launched a missile during their last ditch attack on every country in the middle east and it fell on a school.
congrats on parroting the propaganda of the Iranian regime
> Iranian media
Why would you believe this statement any more than a statement from Putin, Likud, Trump... or anyone like that? The Iranian regime recently admitted to shooting thousands of their own people who were protesting.
Without some confirmation, everything is propaganda, isn't it? Jeez... there is no greater force that that to have one's bias confirmed, is there. That is going to destroy us.
And the tens of thousands of Iranians murdered for protesting? Did you care about them?
Can you explain how this relates to that?
Some people are getting killed so more people should be killed?
10s of thousands of women and children were killed by the regime… so they have no right to complain that these pretend attacks have killed children
> these pretend attacks
Feel free to disagree with the death tolls and the demographics of the victims, but the bombings are very much real...
Did Israelis kill them? No. So, why would anyone care?
Did you see non-stop coverage about it from NYT, WaPo or others? No.
It's baffling to see the lengths people will go to justify israeli crimes.
It's baffling to see the lengths people will go to ignore crimes in general unless they are can be somewhat tied to Israel.
That's not the case at all. Some of us don't take our news from biased US sources.
> That's not the case at all.
Would you consider blowing up a bus with civilians a crime?
Would you consider occupying someone else's land and killing and massacring and raping and displacing its native population a crime?
Both of those are crimes. It's worth noting that the Israeli crimes tend to be less criticized by western governments which tends to make some people angrier about it.
UPDATE: Reports now say that over 80 school children between the age of 7 and 12 were killed in Minab.
How is the Epstein Regime going to survive this politically? How is the Senate (Lindsey Graham, Ted Cruz, etc.) going to survive this politically?
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47199047
No need to worry. They have extensively stress-tested the American public over the past few years and the conclusion is clear: Americans are never going to revolt no matter what you do to them.
I think you forgot /s to your last two points
He could drop a bomb on a school in Ohio, and still enjoy 40% support. There is no red line for these people.
You are mistaken. Just don't assume that diminishing support for Trump will result in increased support for the democratic party. I find both equally disgusting.
Equally? Sigh.
All the people who huffed about Kamala and Trump being sides of the same coin have brought us to this stage. You think Kamala's admin would be anywhere as venal, corrupt, blatantly unlawful as this?
Yes, and absolutely, yes. I am old enough to realize that these are the sides of the same coin. They have different but overlapping sets of masters, but the end result is always the same. I don't see the point of losing time at the polls. Marx was right.
The Iranian Government lies as much as Trump does.
You really believe that news that comes from Iran media at this point?
Meanwhile Pakistan launched airstrikes on Afghanistan
https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2026/feb/27/pakistan-...
Nothing like a war to boost your popularity just before the elections
> Nothing like a war to boost your popularity just before the elections
If he pulls off a regime change, even a Delcy-style swaparoo, he'll get it, and arguably not undeservedly. It will ultimately come down to Iran's capacity to inflict casualties on American forces.
I’m not so sure. This is no where near a priority issue for most Americans, “I can’t afford eggs and the immigrant I buy pizza from got shipped to a warehouse but thank god the regime changed in Iran.”
More than anything else, conservatives love the feeling that they are winning. Over a rival sports team, over a political opponent, and especially over a foreign power. This is why MAGA won over the neocons so easily, the MAGA shtick is to claim to be always winning.
Many conservatives voted for trump because they thought he wasn't a "war hawk", they don't want the US in wars around the world, they don't want their children sent off to die in foreign lands. So they voted for trump and then got "Department of War", and now a war in Iran, the last thing they wanted.
This isn't a defense of the president or his policies but we don't know if this will be a (sustained) war or rather a week or two of airstrikes like the previous iteration and the Maduro thing.
> Many conservatives voted for trump because they thought he wasn't a "war hawk"
I doubt their honesty. Considering they blamed Biden for Russia invading Ukraine and October 7 with the galaxybrain reasoning of "It didn't happen while Trump was in office", I am convinced the isolationism thing is just an unserious talking point.
Even the Joe Rogan MAGAs should remember when they cried on social media about how they were about to be drafted after the Soleimani thing under Trump.
I call bullshit on that. They used war hawk accusation against Harris for the same reason they said she is uneducated and stupid - just a smear and lie in a see of lies. It was just yet another false concern of people who dont care.
There was no reason to believe Harris will be more likely to start a war. They did not cared about that bit. It just sounded better the "I would never vote for democrat" or "she is black woman" or "I want to harm trans people" or "I want to stick it to liberals".
> This is no where near a priority issue for most Americans
I don't think this means the GOP keeps the House. But Trump got a bump from Venezuela, particularly within his party.
Schumer was brought into a briefing on Iran and clearly 'got his mind right' in there. I don't know who makes decisions in government, but it's not the people on camera. US elections are irrelevant to consequential matters, and we waste too much time thinking about them.
I never understand how someone can look at Trump and the last year and think elections don’t matter or have consequences.
I think this framing is bad, it's not that people don't think there are consequences it's that it's 50/50 on whether the consequences will be personally worse for them. There are few, maybe no upsides, to elections in the U.S. for the majority of the electorate.
> US elections are irrelevant to consequential matters
This is nonsense. If you actually believe this, spend some time around your elected representatives and in Washington.
Is our memory so short? Regime change in Iraq destabilized that region for 2 decades.
>Delcy-style swaparoo,
I think IRGCs are much more robust and zealous than whatever Maduro had.
Obviously. They would have kidnapped or assassinated leadership many decades ago otherwise. They have tried and failed many times. They're talking about trying to break the state though, which isn't something the US tried in Vz. This'll be much harder.
Many folks said that if the supreme leader got killed then it's all over. I honestly skeptical since IRGC folks would take over and I think they are much more militant than the Supreme Leader.
You are right to be skeptical. Khomeini died and now Khamenei is supreme leader. He too will have a successor if he dies (or is dead as Isreal clamed a moment ago). Iran has spent the last few weeks picking out successors four deep for each office. It's been the main news besides the "negotiations".
somehow I dont think regime change is gonna happen before the midterms or even before 2028
> I dont think regime change is gonna happen before the midterms
I agree. But to be fair, I would have said the same thing about Venezuela a year ago. Maybe the term should be a regime slip.
We didn’t change the regime in Venezuela though right? Just decapitated it?
No one’s thinking America cant succeed at the killing partz. It’s what comes after that people are worried about.
> We didn’t change the regime in Venezuela though right?
Practically speaking, we changed it. The foreign and energy policies we care about changed. The notion that you need to wholesale clean shop to qualify as regime change is misguided and counterproductive [1].
(On the other end of the spectrum, the fact that we kept the Japanese Emperor on his throne doesn't mean we didn't change the Japanese regime.)
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De-Ba%27athification
I don't know if the same theory works in Iran though right, Iran is amidst economic collapse. It seems like the situation in Venezula with Maduro was tenable so when we decapitated the leader and got what we wanted it was ok that maybe most things didn't change. Is there a similar theory for Iran that's not soaked in hubris?
> Is there a similar theory for Iran that's not soaked in hubris?
Lots of factions in Iran, including within the IRGC. Khamenei's bunker gets hit, oh no, new dude knives the competition and then makes a call to the White House.
The U.S. is amidst economic collapse... hubris ...
Delusional. With your line of thought Al-Qaeda got regime change in the US.
I think he meant another regime not the Iranians.
They leveraged special operations forces in Venezuela. Iran has two US carrier groups on their front door; this operation is not going to be as precise as the one against Maduro.
Trump could liberate every repressed country in the world and it would not impact in the slightest the cold hard fact that neither I nor most the people I know will ever vote R again.
I really hope the US electorate never forgives the Republican Party for the damage it’s done to this country, but I suspect that people’s memories will be short.
If the US public was inclined to “never forgive” those kind of offenses (or even to really fully reject them even once they no longer had dominant support) then the Democratic Party would have been destroyed for its role as the party of slavery and insurrection instead of surviving long enough to reject the bigotry that motivated those stances only to have the Republican Party immediately pick it up.
If you are admitting that you voted R in 2024, and only now you won't vote R, that really doesn't fix anything. Your bar is set so insanely low that you will vote R on someone who is slightly better than Trump.
As a life long D voter, I am personally going to vote R every election now because I want US to sink into the ground so low that people like you experience actual pain and suffering.
Stop it. You're not helping. This kind of thing is really counterproductive. Welcome your comrade with open arm. Give him time to warm up. Don't be an absolutist.
Its not about abolitionism, its about realizing that Trump is not the cause, its a symptom.
The same sentiment that cause Nazi party to rise in power has never been eliminated, its just resurfaced itself years later. USA is not the only one with conservative problem, multiple countries in Europe have signs that right wing populism is on the rise.
And in order to be eliminated, we have to be able to get to extreme levels of social policing. And the only way to get there is through a social reset where people forgo all the comforts in life and are forced to confront the things that are actually important.
> we have to be able to get to extreme levels of social policing
Fuck. That. That is not the world I am fighting for. Go live in North Korea if you want that.
> its a symptom.
We have very different ideas of what Trump is a symptom of.
Lets be clear, you and most people aren't "fighting". Typing comments on the internet, voting, and maybe donating money to PACs is literally the minimum amount of effort anyone can do to show support.
Even for those that are doing political outreach, while the effort being put in is more than the average person, the direction is misplaced - in 2024 it was pretty clear that no matter how much information you give people, they are going to vote a certain way because of extreme polarization.
If people were willing to actually FIGHT for what they believe in through offensive means, physical or cyber, with direct results, I would have a different opinion.
But at this point, its pretty clear where society is headed. I don't want to live in that world either, but shit is going to boil over at one point or another, and delaying the inevitable just means we all get fucked when we are senior citizens instead of within the next decade.
You took a presumption and ran with it into baseless vitriol
>either I nor most the people I know will ever vote R again
This statement shows that the person has voted Trump in the past election, not sure how thats a presumption.
Only I’m not exactly sure what constituency will support this war.
He wasn’t even smart enough to leave America open to attack, manufacture a pretext, and rally people around the flag like 9/11
Heck, there was even a better case in Korea & Vietnam. Even Venezuela. What’s the case this is America’s problem?
Funny how Iran is America's problem so much but Ukraine is not, despite signed security assurance to the Ukrainian people.
This is about Religion. Hegseth is the 'Holy warrior for God' type. If there is a pretense to kill Muslims Trump and him will take it.
Israel is in charge of America and they did noy sign any assurances with Ukraine
The Jesus people love it when Americas army support Israel
The racists love it when Muslims get killed
Having grown up deep in the Bible belt, I can say that there's often a lot of overlap between the Jesus people and the various -ists
Bigotry has been a big part of the Moral Majority's platform for decades for a reason - it works on that demographic
I have an armchair theory about one possible contributing factor
These are two of the most fundamental beliefs of evangelicals and they don't make much sense when you put them side-by-side:
1. God is the ultimate progenitor and prototype of love
2. God wants to torture a LOT of people forever, some of whom you may know personally and may be all appearances be decent people
This creates a certain amount of cognitive dissonance
Rather than reconsider those beliefs (which may result in your own everlasting torment), it's far easier to resolve that discomfort by dehumanizing non-Christians. Maybe they're actually really rotten people that deserve to be tortured
> Only I’m not exactly sure what constituency will support this war.
The remaining neocons who have surprisingly managed to weasel their way back into influence.
If a democracy is meaningfully created in Iran I will consider that a huge win for Trump and it would certainly make me more sympathetic to his party.
To be clear, I don't think the chances of that happening are high.
Yeah right and democracy was created in Iraq and Afghanistan as well!
You sure? Seems like a war for no reason is hardly going to get popular support.
From a man who campaigned on No New Wars.
You're acting like people are rational. It's just about power. Appearing strong appeals to the apes inside the humans. And no one is more in touch with his inner ape than Trump.
Americans are bloodthirsty freaks. Killing people is always popular with Americans.
Military action in Iran is deeply unpopular, being supported by just 27% of US adult citizens [1]. As an aside, Congress literally doesn't care what voters think [2]. The pearl-clutching about this from Congressional Democrats isn't about policy but process, with the likes of Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries saying Congress should authorize this action, not that it shouldn't happen.
I'm interested in what makes empires tick, what their basis of power is.
Spain in the colonial era was propped up by looting silver from Central and South America, for example.
The British Empire is what many (including me) like to call the "drug dealer empire". First tobacco then later opium. Any claims that we didn't know about the health risks of tobacco are complete BS (eg [3]).
Circling back to your point, the US is what I like to call the "arms dealer empire". WW1 and WW2 massively enriched the United States. NATO is essentially a protection racket for Europe and the price is, you guessed it, buying arms from the United States.
And the next Budget has proposed increasing "defense" spending from an already eye-popping $1 trillion to $1.5 trillion [4]. Where does that money go? Arms, weapons programs, defense contractors, the ultra-wealthy.
War is good for business even though it's unpopular.
[1]: https://yougov.com/en-us/articles/54158-few-americans-suppor...
[2]: https://act.represent.us/sign/problempoll-fba/
[3]: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15198996/
[4]: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/trump-proposes-massive...
War is America's business and business is good.
Nothing like a war to boost your popularity just before the elections
Congress will not let him have a third term regardless of what he says or thinks.
Congress seems to be quite toothless lately.
True but they will have a hard time ignoring the 22nd amendment of the US constitution and it would be an easy move to remove him from the election process which a majority of the states themselves could do without opposition.
They might try the good old Putin trick, have a puppet elected on behalf of Trump and let Trump have another high-ranking position (e.g. Vice President) and hold the real power. Trump can still do most of campaigning, and there is also ample opportunity for election fraud.
In russia they had 2 terms limit as well. Putin found a quick work-around by basically running through Proxy.
I can see JD being a figurehead with very public Trump support.
> Congress will let him...
Lol, 'let'. Whose going to stop him?
Each state can decide to not list him in the election process. Some red states for sure would but plenty would not including a few red and purple states.
Nothing like a war to push Epstein out of the headlines.
Almost every lever has been pulled.
The popularity aspect is irrelevant.
Trump can literally do all the things that the epstein files accuse him of doing, right on camera in front of everyone, and Americans will still vote for him all because he isn't a "woke" black woman.
because it’s more comfortable than admitting the people who run the show are scumbags.
because it’s more comfortable than admitting they were wrong.
You really think the elections will happen
There seems to be an uptick around 1am on Polymarket.
https://polymarket.com/event/us-strikes-iran-by
There is a huge flame war in the comments as people who had money on 27th Feb are claiming the attack started on that date
I think they don’t have an argument because technically the missile can be de-activated up until the last seconds before it reaches its intended target
Still it feels surreal to argue about these things , bomb dropping on humans and other humans attacking each other for the privilege to have their bet honored on when said bombs dropped on the other side of the world
I guess people in intelligence communities had these sort of bets going on ever since WW2 and Vietnam , but still it’s uncanny to see it widespread to potentially the whole population of the internet
I tried to access that URL but it's banned in my country (Romania) for being an "exploitative gambling website". It's the first time I've felt that my country has a sensible internet policy.
Due to distance planes need to take off many hours before the bombs drop.
You can get an edge here by moving your ass somewhere where you can see the planes take off, maybe a team with people at multiple locations - boats near the aircraft carrier, near military bases in Israel, ...
Sure, it could be that. My money is on something a bit simpler.
Yes many markets began to react at 1:14AM EST.
I hope this war will be short. And that the result will be Iran becoming a democracy that fully joins the global community. The Iranian people (Persians, Azerbaijanis, Kurds, and others), deserve better.
It would benefit the entire world to see Iran integrated and engaged internationally.
I know a lot of the responses are skeptical (for good reason), but the opportunity is certainly there. The pro-regime population is aging out, with the more secular youth taking hold. There has always been an appreciation for American culture (specifically) amongst the general population. This was true when I was there in the 80s and increasingly more true over the decades since. Concessions by the regime over the hijab laws is one example of the society drifting more towards Western norms. Alcohol and western style parties are way more present in the society than ever before. Basically, the foundation for it is certainly there.
Furthermore if Reza Pahlavi does manage to integrate into the society, he will most certainly use his business and political ties here in the US to westernize the society. He's said as much. Some of the more well known Iranian-American business leaders here in the US (CEO of Uber, CEO of intuit, founder of eBay for example) I'm sure would contribute to work towards this also.
There will be push-back from rural areas (just like anywhere else) and the regime will not go away overnight, but the possibility does exist for this outcome. I think the biggest roadblock would be America and Israel intentionally preventing this outcome for the reasons that suit them geopolitically.
EDIT: should have mentioned that after decades of widely known voter manipulation and more or less "mock" elections, Iranians would be happy to finally participate in actual democratic processes where their votes and voices matter
> And that the result will be Iran becoming a democracy that fully joins the global community.
You can hope that (and I can hope that), but the powers that are driving this military action completely do not care about this outcome. Which makes it exceedingly difficult for me to think this will happen.
I know the US proxies keep blabbering about 'regime change', but there's zero intentionality behind the political work to do that. My guess is balkanization, which won't really go how the US/Israel wants it to go
I can't believe that people are so naively optimistic - it's not too long that we fought endless wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and to what end?
The Taliban ruling Afghanistan and an unstable coalition in Iraq.
You know how much we spent? $5.8 to $8 trillion.
This is unlikelly because Iranian regime is going to execute false flag operations against their people to steer public opinion in their favour.
Not if the US kills the whole regime. They certainly have the firepower. And Israel has the intelligence.
There is zero likelihood of that. The IRGC and Iranian forces are a million strong and have a loyal base of support among the population. Without boots on the ground, relying on air power and 'moderate rebels' you are looking at at least a decade of war (using Syria and Libya as best-case-scenarios examples; Assad regime was nothing like the Iranian). The Israelis are dividing the opposition by pushing the out-of-touch monarchists as their would-be puppets and the Trump regime are backing them too. Which means they are not even seriously pushing any viable or credible alternative. They are likely arming the Kurdish and other ethnic factions in the region and stoking ethnic conflict. It is in Israel's interests to prolong the conflict , to degrade Iran's military and economy (like they did in Syria) and even break it up into smaller manageable parts. The monarchists are a moon-shot; Reza Pehlavi is not his father (who also was a US puppet) - Israelis like him because he will be weak and pliable and completely dependent on foreign patronage.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yinon_Plan
Interesting point on Israel pushing for the monarchy to come back.
Democracy in the middle-east does not result in Israel or US aligned governments, but the monarchies have proven more interested in preserving their autocratic dynasties and quite easy and eager to work with Israel and the US to preserve themselves.
Aside from Israel are there any democracies in the Middle East?
My observation was that more democracy in the Middle East is not what Israel or the US is interested in, given that the people's choice there would be overwhelmingly against Israeli and US interests.
They replaced the last democratic choice in Egypt with another military dictator, they keep the widely unpopular autocrat in Jordan on his throne with military and intelligence subsidies, have established and propped up a network of autocratic Gulf states that toe the line...
So yeah, I would not be surprised that Israel and the US would be more than happy to but a scion of the previous Iranian autocratic dynasty back on the throne there.
Lebanon is democracy. It is true that system is sectarian (power-sharing among religious groups) but still a democracy.
Iran elects their President. Is it a shining example of a democracy, no, but it has a much stronger democratic tradition than say Saudi Arabia. If the US and British hadn't been meddling there for the last 70 years it would probably be a secular democracy now.
They elect someone from a short list approved by the supreme leader...who will execute policy dictated to him by the supreme leader. Plus thousands of Iranians are executed yearly for crimes against the regime (make it tens of thousands in 2026). Calling Iran a democracy is a joke, it's a brutal dictatorship.
Did I call it a democracy?
Anyway, democracy is not a binary. You'd be unlikely to call ancient Athens a democracy by modern standards and yet...
Israel's a democracy the way the 3/5ths compromise promoted democracy.
There is virtually zero recent historical precedent supporting your wish, and plenty of precedent suggesting the opposite will happen.
I wonder why that is.
We saw significant success with Germany, Japan, South Korea, and other countries in the past. But more recently, similar efforts seem to have ended in failure.
We fully went into those countries and were willing to spend decades rebuilding them.
They’re also nice countries, with governments and organisation. Places like Afghanistan have nothing. You have to try and start civilisation from scratch, in a hostile land.
> They’re also nice countries, with governments and organisation. Places like Afghanistan have nothing. You have to try and start civilisation from scratch, in a hostile land.
Iran has a lot though so it could work there.
They didn't have any natural resources that could be exploited.
> Fully joins the global community
If by that you mean that Iran will become a toothless vassal state of the U.S.-Americans, then God forbid.
What do you mean by “toothless”?
I was thinking more along the lines of Japan or South Korea. Militarily restrained, but prosperous and strong.
I understand that recent military actions have often made things worse, not better. I am just trying to stay optimistic. From what I know, many Iranians are not enthusiastic about religion controlling law and politics.
Does the us have any toothless vassal states?
We literally just went through this with Venezuela. They replaced the dictator with the assistant dictator. The Iranian face of regime change making the rounds in Western media is the son of the last Shah.
This scenario always imagines that the people getting bombs rained down on them will somehow determine that their actual friends in the world are those dropping the bombs.
Even accepting this, how exactly are these peaceful, western friendly civilians going to withstand a war better than their country's army?
It's very depressing to see this playbook credulously trotted out yet again. When has this worked?
the drones just have to fly slower for the kids and schools…”Easy, you just don't lead 'em so much”
NYT gift link: https://www.nytimes.com/live/2026/02/28/world/iran-strikes-t...
Feb 25:
>White House officials believe ‘the politics are a lot better’ if Israel strikes Iran first
>As the administration mulls military action in Iran, officials argue it’d be best if Israel makes the first move.
https://www.politico.com/news/2026/02/25/white-house-politic...
Looks like the rumor was incorrect. Both jointly attacked (NYtimes - https://www.nytimes.com/live/2026/02/28/world/iran-strikes-t...)
But Israel announced it first, which they maybe hoped would amount to the same thing PR wise.
The rumor above specifically talks about letting Iran retaliate against Israel which would then lead US to attack.
I'm not sure what's the logic behind that PR-wise, but regardless, it didn't happen.
As I recall Iran said quite openly, in response to the US troop buildup, that they would see an attack by Israel as an attack by the US, suggesting that they could target e.g. carriers instead of Israel if Israel attacked them.
> I'm not sure what's the logic behind that PR-wise
Part of it is the stated idea that Israel still has public support. That such an exchange, even if Israel launches the first strike, would get more support. This is probably misjudging the actual public support for Israel, which is much lower amongst the general public than amongst (esp. Republican) political circles.
The other part of it is that Trump has surrounded himself with card-carrying nazis, who have not at all been subtle about their desires to harm jews.
> but regardless, it didn't happen.
That Israel didn't launch the first strike and instead insisting on a joint strike (despite otherwise being constantly warmongering), suggests to me that it's the latter 'part' of the reason that had a lot of weight here.
Just now:
Trump: "The lives of American heroes may be lost, and we may have casualties - that often happens in war."
Another republican president starting a war in the middle east, once again sacrificing American lives.
While I think this (and Venezuela) are arguably the biggest missteps this administration is making, it's hardly a partisan point. The political establishment loves war more than perhaps anything else. In 2016 alone Obama bombed half a dozen different countries with more than 26,000 munitions for an average rate of three bombs dropped every hour, every day, for a year. [1] Nobel Peace Prize embodied.
I think the only way to get away from the warmongering is to go for a third party. But even they would likely be corrupted by the excessive influence of the military industrial complex. Eisenhower was not only right, but plainly prophetic.
[1] - https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/list-of-c...
Not defending that peace price but: Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009 for his efforts to prevent nuclear proliferation.
Trump this time around didn't inherit a major us deployment in a conflict area. No Iraq, no Afghanistan. Also, he's doing military strikes by himself, no Congress involved.
Syrian and Libia were both essentially civil wars with an oppressive regime with Syria using allegedly chemical weapons.
Your source is a very weird site. Countries Obama bombed 2026??? What does that even mean. Is it just a typo in the main heading and the title?
Large scale deployments shifted under Obama to widescale bombing campaigns. The site mentions its various sources such as this [1] which mentions that Obama also increased the number of drone strikes by an order of magnitude relative to his predecessor. To be clear I'm not picking on Obama, but saying solely that this isn't a partisan issue. "They" all love war.
And places being in a state of internal conflict, conflict which is itself often backed and fomented by US intelligence agencies and backed proxy forces, is hardly some reason to go bomb them. Even moreso when you look at results. See what Libya turned into, and what Syria is now turning into. It turns out that Al Qaeda in a suit is still Al Qaeda, to literally nobody's surprise if you're even vaguely familiar with our history of backing extremists and putting them in power, something which we have done repeatedly.
This war, if it escalates, is not going to be good for Iran, the people of Iran, or likely even the US. The only country that might come out a winner is Israel, but even that might not end up being the case, as Iran's retaliation will likely focus on them. To say nothing of longer term consequences.
[1] - https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-preside...
Drone strikes picked up, obviously as that technology became more and more mature. They're cheaper to operate and don't put a pilot in harms way. So that's kinda expected?
Agreed with most of the rest you said though
> So that's kinda expected?
Sure, if the choice is between drone bombings and conventional bombings.
But no, not expected if the choice is between bombing and not bombing.
> Large scale deployments shifted under Obama to widescale bombing campaigns
This isn't true. Small-scale targeted raids, not B52s recreating Dresden.
> And places being in a state of internal conflict, conflict which is itself often backed and fomented by US intelligence agencies and backed proxy forces
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timber_Sycamore
Not only that but it should be noted what the stated aim is of these strikes and earlier Trump strikes on Iran: take out the nuclear threat.
That nuclear threat was contained under a plan backed by US, EU, Russia, China and Iran, in which Iran would not pursue nuclear expansion and let a team of international experts in to verify this on a continuous basis, in exchange for some sanction relief. A solution Trump threw in the trash, reinstating the sanctions, pressuring Iran to pursue nuclear again as one of its few levers of power it can pull on.
In other words he created the necessity for violence by throwing away a unique solution that the entire world got behind including US allies & enemies, throwing away goodwill and trust in future deals (why would Iran negotiate now if it's clear how Trump views deals, as things to be broken even irrationally?)
Those who claim this is an anti-war president have no clue, even in the context of a 'just war' argument it simply falls flat.
Is it just another distraction from the Trump/Epstein files?
It does seem that military action is correlated with increased coverage in the media of the Trump/Epstein files.
yes, that is what it is. Nothing more, nothing less IMHO
Hard to say. Netanyahu has been calling for Iranian regime change since the 90s, and Trump is his most successful lobbying effort yet. US wants regime change, they just never saw a possibility. So the objective isn't new or driven by Epstein, perhaps the timing is though.
Even now most experts agree the chance of success is extremely small, every time this was tried you got shit returns (think Libya, still a failed state after Ghadaffi fell, and Iraq is reasonably stable now but we're 2 decades in and +1m dead Iraqis).
So it's certainly a useful distraction for Trump. It's also certainly true Trump would want to pursue this objective (despite it being a stupid move to reach it) regardless of the Epstein files.
Libya wasn't even remotely close to a failed state under Ghadaffi. Under Ghadaffi they had the highest gdp/capita and life expectancy in all of Africa, the highest human development index, lowest infant mortality, and more. Ghadaffi was working to create a unified African bloc to make Africa itself something of a geopolitical power. He was even working towards creating the 'African Gold Dinar' which was to be a gold backed currency which could replace the dollar in international exchange.
And he went quite quickly from being called a "critical partner in the fight against terror" to being overthrown and summarily murdered by US backed extremists, leaving Libya in a complete state of turmoil and deterioration, and even seeing the rise of organized slavery. [1] 'Regime change' in a nutshell.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Libya#Slavery_in_th...
idk what you think I said but I said it's a failed state after Ghadaffi fell.
so, Epstein has turned out to be the greatest asset for Netanyahu.
Should we hold the media accountable for coverage of the Trump/Epstein files because of this?
I'd rather we held Trump accountable for his many crimes.
I find it astounding that the U.S. population aren't storming Washington and demanding his removal. Other countries are removing people from positions who were involved with Epstein due to the massive corruption and yet the USA seems fine with allowing Trump to continue destroying everything he touches.
Regarding intervention in Venezuela, is that seen as a mistep in the US? In the rest of America it is considered as a win, except of course by Cuba (Cubans are the most, almost the only, affected)
Regarding politicians: Gustavo Petro was the most vocal protester; now that Trump told him in the White house to shut up, he is wagging his tail happily.
The operation in Venezuela could be characterised as an enormous success in the sense that it didn't seem to do anything and therefore was a big improvement on most times the US activates its military. But it was still a misstep in the sense that it keeps US aggression top of mind without achieving very much.
It did help the US government's goals of starving Cuba.
My take, as an American: the outcome seems to be good - Maduro is out of power, his number 2 seems much more willing to play ball and from what I've read Venezuela's economy is now improving as money flowing in has turned around their previously out of control inflation. It managed to not flare into a full scale war, no Americans died - so I think approval is middle to high on it.
That said the justification for it made no sense to me and many others. Trump accused Maduro of narcoterrorism - profiting from the drug trade and violence. Where's the evidence? And the whole bit about the oil ... Usually that's the critique of US actions, not the reason we give; we should be moving full speed towards adopting renewables so an oil grab really doesn't make sense. Though Trump's energy policy has always been entirely backwards.
And we should probably also worry about the example we've set - that we'll just intervene when it suits us with a cooked up justification certainly incentivizes dangerous behavior - how many countries are now thinking about the deterrents they could acquire? But most Americans don't think about unintended consequences of laws or government actions.
One last thought re oil - the smart move would probably be to invest in Venezuelan oil not for sale in the US but for export to India and maybe Europe - try to use it as a replacement for Russian oil. That would in turn hurt Russia's economy and thereby reduce their efforts to wage war in Ukraine. But if that's the plan, Trump has never said that. And it also doesn't really fit his worldview that the Ukraine war should be Europe's problem and not the US's problem. But maybe it'll end up happening anyway, if Venezuela's oil production picks up and the US doesn't actually have the demand for it.
It successfully didn’t backfire on the US.
A war? Of course not. It’s a major combat operation. Only congress can declare wars. We haven’t had any in decades. They should call it the Dept. of Major Combat Operations.
Isn't the currently trendy term "special military operation"?
That's reserved for those lost 200,000* of personnel dead.
* Only verified number with real losses dead higher and even more crippled.
https://en.zona.media/article/2026/02/24/mapofwar
Aged quickly
The USA never even declared the Vietnam "conflict" as a war, or Korea, come to that, though that did at least have the backing of the UN.
It's not just the US, very few wars have been formally declared after WW2, because we all learned war is bad™, so we added more and more rules (both international and national) to make it harder to do it.
But the reasons wars existed didn't go away, so this just resulted in more and more people getting killed in "special military operations" or similar things. See e.g. "Why States No Longer Declare War"[0].
[0] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228896825_Why_State...
That article says that nowadays countries no longer declare war, because now there are a lot of international treaties that restrict what may be done during wars.
Not declaring war provides a workaround, allowing the states to do whatever they desire, without constraints, while avoiding being accused that they do not observe their obligations assumed internationally.
Seems plausible.
As soon a country agrees to enter a conflict on a side, which the original axes declare to be a war, it's at war. You can tell the media whatever you want of course.
The US didn’t declare war since WW2 because such a declaration would give the president disruptive powers (such as the power to seize factories).
In fact, after Vietnam war congress specifically created a law to restrict hostilities without congress approval to up to 60 days, which is what the current (and prior) administrations are acting on.
The occurrence of a war is a fact whether or not it is declared, and whether or not the actor waging war does so consistent with the legal requirements their nation's laws put on doing so.
I like Special Military Operation better.
I thought he wasn't allowed to start a war without a vote in congress?
(a) It's not a war, it's just a military operation.
(2) It's only the constitution that requires an act of congress, and that document is not considered applicable by the current king.
Worse. He has to win a vote in Congress. How bothersome!
This may be the bloodiest "Wag the Dog" in modern history. They may create an Ig Nobel peace prize specifically for this.
Once again mass killing civilians and setting a country of 100 million inhabitants into chaos.
But yes, poor American soldiers.
"Some of you are going to die, but that is a sacrifice I'm willing to make"
Americans voted for no new wars, and especially no new wars in the sandbox, and they got a new war in the sandbox.
Americans really have to be among the most gullible people on the planet.
Not to mention that Trump is a paedophile, the open corruption, attempted coup etc... it's like that Hemingway quote. The decline of the USA has been gradual, and then very sudden.
Isn't that famously a Scott Fitzgerald quote?
You're implying those who voted for Trump believed his pitch.
I would like to give them the benefit of the doubt, that they are effectively merely retarded rather than actually evil.
Why not both?
> Trump: "The lives of American heroes may be lost, and we may have casualties - that often happens in war."
Coming from President Bone Spurs ...
Trump is calling them heroes now. But we know what he really thinks: "suckers and losers".
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/john-kelly-con...
"Some of you may die, but that is a risk I am willing to take."
You forgot the Obama wars for some reason?
There were no Obama wars.
[flagged]
I can't believe I have to say this on HN but no, the Iraq war was not started for Israel. Yes Netanyahu did testify before Congress but he was not testifying on behalf of Israel and the Israeli government quietly warned against invading Iraq.
I noticed that you somehow failed to mention 9/11, Colin Powell, George Bush or Osama Bin Laden, nor the fact that the Invasion has bipartisan support and was overwhelming popular with the American public.
Yes, thanks for confirming that the Iraq war was started because of Israel, and not oil. None of what you mentioned specifically discredits Israel as the primary cause of the Iraq war.
You ARE aware of the Heritage foundation, right?
You guys really like revising history in realtime, huh? As if we didn’t live through that era ourselves. It was never a remote secret that Israel kept pushing the US to attack Iraq and had done so for years before 9/11, which Iraq had no part in anyhow.
[flagged]
[flagged]
American boomers are truly like robots.
[flagged]
I’m honestly perplexed. I had anticipated a scenario like “the US feared Iran was unstable and attacked to protect nuclear material”. It seems this would give them reasonable cover. I don’t see how Israel going along helps
Bibi needs Israel to keep fabricating wars. He will go to trial for previous charges if Israel runs out of wars.
How can you attack israeli pm on US site? This is not what we paid/threatened/extorted/killed for!
> Israel going along
Honinbo-sensei, you seem to have failed to recognize puppy-go for what it is and also to identify the player.
s/politics/optics/
well, they were one week away from a nuke, as usual.
We need to get the Iranians working on nuclear fusion instead.
They were going to get AGI before US but don’t worry, the last openai funding and this war will save US
While that's a funny thought, recently I stumbled across a sobering website [1].
This website lets you zoom in on the Ukraine-Russia battlefront and place Polymarket bets on land being taken by Russia. We may be closer to big private company betting on wars than we'd like to think.
[1] pizzint.watch
since 1992!
There's an Israeli newspaper from 1984 saying it's a month away. Definitely more than a month passed between '84 and '92.
Btw. They ARE not that far away from the bomb, after they enriched uranium as a consequence of Trump (in his first term) cancelling the Obama treaty.
But they ARE a theocracy and Ajatollah Chamenei released an order (fatwa) forbidding Iran from obtaining and using an a-bomb. The new religious leader might change the religious law tho. I mean the one that comes after Chamenei becomes a martyr.
Funny how, knowing just a little bit more, it all really looks like nonsense created for illiterate, just to take their attention off of Epstein Pedophile Scandal.
[flagged]
The concept of nuclear brinkmanship is part of accepted WMD doctrine. A country can maintain a fixed short interval away from weaponization for decades. It is widely accepted that Iran does have a military nuclear program; the amount of material enriched, the enrichment level achieved and the hardening of the involved facilities are an open testament to that (there are many other intelligence signals that we are not privy to).
I think you're missing the point: a constant justification for bombing Iran is that they are one month, one week, or a couple months from building a nuclear bomb.
If that was true, obviously they would have built one buy now. Being one year away from building would be non-urgency inducing.
The constant lying about timelines does not imply Iran does not enrich uranium, but, as you remember, after the last bombing the leaders of the USA and Israel said they had completely obliterated Iran's nuclear program. Except, apparently After six months they are one week away from a nuke again.
This seems to indicate the USA should be bombing Iran every few weeks, forever, just in case they get a bit faster next time.
Except, when we don't have any scandal or other crisis going on, then Iran does not seem to be getting a nuke quickly. I wonder why.
> If that was true, obviously they would have built one buy now. Being one year away from building would be non-urgency inducing.
Reread your parent comment, the concept of a threshold nuclear state is that they are constantly a month away, for years. That's the entire point, being effectively a nuclear state without holding a nuclear weapon
Yeah, it's a form of nuclear deterrence, one that does not need an actual nuclear weapon to sort of, kinda work.
The problem I have with this doctrine is that if it's supposed to deter an opponent who already has a nuclear deterrent, they may decide their deterrent is not so deterring anymore and actively go and use it against you.
The whole idea of nuclear deterrence relies on all parties being rational and sensible about nuclear weapons use, but I don't see a lot of rationality in the current eventuality.
I mean, we all understand this. We also all understand that "Iran is one week away from a nuclear weapon" is a so-stupid-its-amazing-it-works wordgame that is intended to fool the general public into thinking "wow! Well we better go in NOW!", because without qualifiers, it sounds like "they are literally going to have a bomb in one week if we DON'T go in now". If, however, the talking heads on CNN explained this ("Iran has stopped one week short of obtaining a nuclear weapon, they are holding there as a form of nuclear deterrence"), then the public would (rightly) realize that this is not really any different from what the USA does. The USA has this whole convoluted "defcon" system where we go from "20 minutes away from a nuclear weapon" to "the nuclear weapon is headed for you now". Hmm, sounds like the same strategy, with different steps.
https://x.com/realdonaldtrump/status/255784560904773633?s=46
People are posting these choice quotes:
"In order to get elected Barack Obama will start a war with Iran"
—Donald Trump, Nov 29, 2011
"Barack Obama will attack Iran to get re-elected."
—Trump, Jan 17, 2012
"Now that Obama's poll numbers are in tailspin watch for him to launch a strike on Libya or Iran. He is desperate."
—Trump, Oct 9, 2012
During the election MAGA was yelling that Kamala Harris was going to bring us into war with Iran. They are real quiet now, as usual. Republicans are always the same, cut benefits to the poor, cut taxes on the rich, war with the Middle East. Every, single, time.
"Former Vice President Kamala Harris: 'I unequivocally oppose this war'"
https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2026/02/28/k...
Ill doers are illdeemers.
While I have no love for the Iranian regime I fear this will end up like the 'liberation' of Iraq: A massive power vacuum in an unstable Islamic regime.
What even is the plan here if the air assault fails? Boots on the ground? In Iran?
Your description of what happened in Iraq was exactly the point of why we invaded. Iraq and Iran were the two biggest threats to Israel, we got rid of Iraq and now we are removing the only other rival to Israel remaining in the Middle East.
After this, Israel, being the only nuclear power in the region and having massive funding from the American taxpayer, will dominate the entire region. This has always been the goal.
After this, Israel, being the most dangerous rogue state in the world and extremely divided internally, will likely devolve into civil war.
One hopes, anyway. That’s the best chance we have to remove the Nazis currently in power here.
There is virtually no chance they will start a civil war, they are an ethnostate and the majority of their citizens are wholly in favor of continuing to expand.
>In August 2025, Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in an interview with i24NEWS that he was on a "historic and spiritual mission" and that he is "very" attached to the vision of Greater Israel, which includes Palestinian areas and possibly also places that are part of Jordan, Egypt, Syria, and Lebanon.
>Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich has suggested that Israel is destined to expand to include Jordan, and even beyond, to parts of Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt and even Iraq.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Israel
It is absolutely not a coincidence that most of the places mentioned in that list are also places that the US has been waging war for the past generation: Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt, Iraq.
>Hillel Weiss, a professor at Bar-Ilan University, has promoted the "necessity" of rebuilding the Temple and of Jewish rule over Greater Israel.[44][45][46] Francesca Albanese and Amos Goldberg have said that an aim towards a Greater Israel is a factor during the Gaza genocide.[47][48] According to Yoav Di-Capua, one of the beliefs of the Hardal movement is "the obligation to retrieve the biblical land of Israel in its entirety as a pre-requisite for collective redemption which heralds the arrival of the Messiah"
They are driven to continue taking land in the middle east because they have a religious belief that their Messiah will arrive when they fulfill the prophecy.
After Iran falls - Turkey is next.
> While I have no love for the Iranian regime
Who say US is not regime? It is the world largest regime in the world, with bidders in every country to do their bidding, mass surveillance including their own country men. People blame only Russia, China, Iran etc when US have been doing the same for years.
Watch: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/w6_2Ul3Ght8
> Who say US is not regime?
Who says it isn't? Regime literally means a system of government [1].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regime#Usage
> Who say US is not regime?
Unless they edited, not GP. 2 things can be a regime at the same time.
I generally use 'regime' for autocratic governments.
Trump is democratically elected, for now.
I'm not actually sure if this is correct, English is not my native language.
Regime just means ruling system. Western media prefers to use it as a shorthand for autocratic governments so it gotten a bad conotation, but any ruling system can be described as a regime, regardless of if you like it or not. The organization you work at has a "regime"
> I generally use 'regime' for autocratic governments
Which is fine.
"In theory, the term need not imply anything about the particular government to which it relates, and most social scientists use it in a normative and neutral manner. The term, though, can be used in a political context. It is used colloquially by some, such as government officials, media journalists, and policy makers, when referring to governments that they believe are repressive, undemocratic, or illegitimate or simply do not square with the person’s own view of the world. Used in this context, the concept of regime communicates a sense of ideological or moral disapproval or political opposition" [1].
[1] https://www.britannica.com/topic/regime
There is no precise definition. English has many synonyms where the formal meaning is the same, but one is used pejoratively because it's acquired a bad association. Regime is like that, formally it just means the rule of a particular party or system. It can still be used neutrally if not denoting a government.
That's great. But that not how everyone else in the world uses 'regime'. So you will have to come to terms with that.
Iran also had elections, were they manipulated? I do not know. Were US people were manipulated using social media for elections. I do not know either.
> Trump is democratically elected, for now.
He was convicted felon before the election, I cannot believe that he won.
The elected president of Iran is more like a Chief of Staff to the actual leader.
What even is the plan here if the air assault fails? Boots on the ground? In Iran?
Other than nukes that would be the only option if they can blast the doors to the underground military cities. They will have to do it fast as the ships will not sustain combat for more than 5 days with their current ammo per the pentagon.
Why would warships only have ammo for 5 days??
Well in my opinion I would call that piss poor planning but I am just repeating what the pentagon said. For all I know this could be misdirection.
Right, now Trump says combat may last 4 weeks
That means refueling somehow and getting massive amounts of heavy munitions delivered. Meanwhile congress are trying to have an emergency war powers meeting to shut all this down. Whatever they have planned they better step it up.
I don’t think it’s possible to change regime without boots on the ground which is not currently considered. So there will be no power vacuum, at most Iran military will be weaken. It’s not a big win for the US but would allow Trump to safe face after his demands were essentially rejected.
I imagine CIA political officers are on the ground right now.
Iraq was not an Islamic regime in the same sense. It was not a theocracy. There were non Muslims in senior political positions.
The Iraqi government was a lot more stable.
What exactly do you imagine will replace the Iranian government that is worse?
Iraq was attacking its neighbors every couple of years, Iran is not.
Iran has shown that it is remarkably sane actually, given the aggression shown towards it by Israel and the US and has made a lot of efforts to reach a deal.
Remember, it was the US that exited the JCPOA and now it wants Iran to give up all its misses so that they would be defenseless.
I have no love for theocracies, but I do think the Iranian system is a lot better than the likes of Saudi Arabia, which we're buddy buddy with.
Oh and I guess the founder of Syrian branch of AQ and deputy head of ISIS running Syria is better that what was before too, in your book?
Iran attacks its neighbors through proxies: Hizbollah, Houthis, Shiite militias, and Hamas. These groups are armed and funded by Iran.
Oh yes, and the fact that Israel is just sitting there occupying millions of Palestinians, attacking Syria, Lebanon etc. despite a 'ceasefire' has nothing to do with why these groups continue to exist, I am sure.
Iran's funding for these groups is a part of its 'defense in depth' strategy since it doesn't have the capability to project power otherwise. I am not saying that it is the right thing to do, but I am also not that surprised that backed into a corner, they're trying to build regional proxies. It's not like the US and Israel are not doing the same in and around Iran.
But I like how these statements, like yours, are always made with zero context and hope for an uninformed audience to upvote them.
> Iran's funding for these groups is a part of its 'defense in depth' strategy
That's the rationalisation. Not a justification. Defence in depth was Hitler's rationale for invading Russia, is Israel's strategy for pacifying neighbors, and is Russia's excuse for invading Ukraine.
Creating weak neighbors is checklist-item one for any classical aspiring land empire. It's also tremendously destabilising to its neighbourhood. (It's not a coincidence that China and Russia are bordered by (a) shitshows or (b) countries militarily posturing against them.)
> Hitler's rationale
Ah yes, give any discussion enough time and Hitler inevitably gets to be whoever your opponent is.
Unlike Hitler, unlike Israel and unlike the US, Iran has not proactively attacked.
Hitler had no reason to fear attack from Russia, Czechoslovakia or France. Iran has every reason to fear an attack from the US and Israel, look at what is happening right now ffs.
Western governments provide funding and shelter for extremist Iranian groups like People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran and various separatists movements inside the country, so please spare me this Hitler nonsense.
> give any discussion enough time and Hitler inevitably gets to be whoever your opponent is
Because it fits. Nazi Germany was an aspiring land power. You can see the same effect in Imperial Rome and the Persian empires. (And, while America was conquering its own continent, on the peripheries of Manifest-Destiny America.)
> Unlike Hitler, unlike Israel and unlike the US, Iran has not proactively attacked
Of course they have. Its proxies are constantly proactively attacking everyone in their neighbourhood.
> Hitler had no reason to fear attack from Russia, Czechoslovakia or France. Iran has every reason to fear an attack from the US and Israel, look at what is happening right now ffs
Everyone has reason to fear attack from everyone. Defence in depth is a regionally-destabilising response to that security imperative. And by the way, Russia and Germany did wind up going to war with each other. Same as Iran and Israel, that same one whose anihiliation the former has been chanting for since its revolution.
Arguing Iran has been some peaceful country minding its own business is totally inaccurate.
> Arguing Iran has been some peaceful country minding its own business is totally inaccurate.
Compared to Israel and the US, it would be a massive understatement to call Iran peaceful.
> Compared to Israel and the US, it would be a massive understatement to call Iran peaceful
Sure. Which makes Iran a decidedly not-peaceful country.
At every step, for years, they've tried to de-escalate while Israel and the US launched direct attacks against them. Embassies bombed, that general in Iraq in 2020, last summer and now this. All of these attacks completely unprovoked except for the fact that they are friendly with Hamas and Hezbollah.
They are practically Gandhi in this story.
Looking forward, the problem with being irrationally hateful is that its irrational. What's the plan here? Persia will still exist, and its unlikely any future rulers will like Israel, given what's going on. So what's the win condition?
> At every step, for years, they've tried to de-escalate
They've also, simultaneously, tried to escalate.
> All of these attacks completely unprovoked except for the fact that they are friendly with Hamas and Hezbollah
"Friendly with" in the way America was friendly with South Vietnam and South Korea. (Also, the IRGC has directly sponsored attacks, e.g. Bondi Beach.)
> They are practically Gandhi in this story
This is either stupid or dishonest.
> What's the plan here?
Don't confuse specific criticism with endorsement of the war.
> Because it fits. Nazi Germany was an aspiring land power.
Look at the mass murder by Israel in Gaza. Or how the US just overthrew Venezuela and seized their resources, threatened to take Greenland, taunts Canada and suggests more countries are in their sights.
And now the two of them teamed up to bomb Iran, unprovoked, saying it's going to "annihilate their Navy" as their citizens run for cover.
And your conclusion is Iran is the one that resembles Nazi Germany?
> your conclusion is Iran is the one that resembles Nazi Germany?
In this strategic aspect, yes. So does Israel. So do Russia and China. They're all acting like land empires. And they're all pursuing a strategy that seeks weak, unstable neighbours.
It's a shitty strategy that does't earn one friends. The fact that it's theoretically coherent doesn't make it less shitty.
> In this strategic aspect, yes. So does Israel. So do Russia and China. They're all acting like land empires.
The issue is that you seem to be ignoring the context and using this (weak imo) comparison to defend the US and Israel's decision to attack them.
> by the way, Russia and Germany did wind up going to war with each other. Same as Iran and Israel,
Are you seriously arguing that Hitler was rational for preemptively attacking Russia because AFTER Hitler attacked Russia, Russia did not simply sit back and let itself be attacked but in fact started defending itself? And are you arguing that Israel doing the same is rational because AFTER Israel attacked Iran, Iran launched some missiles towards Israel IN RESPONSE TO THE ISRAELI ATTACK, therefore proving Israel right that Iran is going to attack them?
> that same one whose anihiliation the former has been chanting for since its revolution.
Oh and Israel has been nothing but wishing them happy Ramadan?
The reason Israel does not want the current Iranian system to survive is because it sees it as the only possible threat to its eternal domination of the Palestinians and its ability to dictate its borders in the Middle East.
> Are you seriously arguing that Hitler was rational for preemptively attacking Russia because AFTER Hitler attacked Russia, Russia did not simply sit back and let itself be attacked but in fact started defending itself?
No. I'm saying Hitler's theory of attacking Russia was the same as Iran's simultaneous proxy wars with its entire neighbourhood. It's not theoretically wrong. Just antiquated, destructive and–in the trade-based modern world–increasingly counterproductive. (You're trashing and alienating your natural trading partners.)
And I'm drawing analogy between (a) "Iran has every reason to fear an attack from the US and Israel, look at what is happening right now" and (b) the nonsense argument "that Hitler was rational for preemptively attacking Russia because AFTER Hitler attacked Russia, Russia did not simply sit back and let itself be attacked." In both cases, retaliation is being used to justify the preceding (note: not initial) aggression.
> Oh and Israel has been nothing but wishing them happy Ramadan?
If your neighbour is developing ballistic missiles and explicitly calling for your anihilation, you're not going to "simply sit back and let [your]self be attacked."
> reason Israel does not want the current Iranian system to survive is because it sees it as the only possible threat to its eternal domination of the Palestinians and its ability to dictate its borders in the Middle East
Iran isn't a material threat to Israel's power projection into Gaza and the West Bank. Its ballistic missiles and nuclear programme, on the other hand, are an existential threat to Tel Aviv/Jerusalem. And yes, it's a regional competitor to Israeli (and Saudi and Emirati) hegemony.
> Iran's simultaneous proxy wars with its entire neighborhood
Except that's not happening and is complete BS. It also assumes these proxies have no agency and would not have acted on their own.
> It's not theoretically wrong. Just antiquated, destructive and–in the trade-based modern world–increasingly counterproductive. (You're trashing and alienating your natural trading partners.)
Guess what would allow Iran to peacefully trade with Israel. The end of Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories. The reason Iran cannot simply ignore that occupation is because it would loose the moral high ground in the Shia/Muslim world. And having that moral high ground (i.e. its support for the Palestinian cause) is also part of its power projection strategy.
> If your neighbour is developing ballistic missiles and explicitly calling for your anihilation, you're not going to "simply sit back and let [your]self be attacked.
Given that Israel does indeed have ballistic missiles and is explicitly calling for for the annihilation of Palestinians, or even 'Arabs' in general, does that in your mind justify October 7th?
> Iran isn't a material threat to Israel's power projection into Gaza and the West Bank.
Not Iran itself, but Israel insists that Iran support for 'proxies' is. Maybe not to Israeli power projection, but to its security at least.
Iranian government massacres its own civilians whenever they dare to demand change. Iranians are also largely secular compared to citizens of most Arab states, and hate their government. They're also mostly Shia, which makes it hard for likes of ISIS and Al Qaeda to gain ground there, as Shias are enemies to Sunni extremists.
I believe there's a much better change of democracy / sane regime in Iran, than there ever was in Iraq and other Arab states.
Iran attacks through its proxies.
Mossad was literally bragging that it is handing out weapons in Iran recently, but yes, Iran always 'attacks' for no reason and should not do anything no matter what happens right?
Same as the Gaza and Lebanon ceasefires where one side stops attacking and the other (Israel) keeps bombing?
I see how this works.
>Iraq was attacking its neighbors every couple of years, Iran is not.
Nonsense. Iran has been stirring up trouble in the region for a long time.
Indeed, Israel just wants to occupy the Palestinians in peace.
Perhaps you forgot that it was Iraq who attacked Iran and Kuwait while Iran attacked no country but hey.
That all being said, we are talking about different cultures. Iranians are on average more educated than Iraqis were/are, and the country is ethnically more homogeneous.
So I have hope that they'll find a way to organize when the current regime falls.
And we’re mostly not religious at all.
We have Ramadan here now. No one cares. Arab influencer come and make videos and are shocked
Everyone eats and drinks during the days we don’t care
I know that, but what I don't get is with a society like that, how can a theocratic government last for so long? Maybe I'm being naive, but authoritarian governments tend to fall when an educated population is against them. Iran looks like a weird case to me in this respect in that the population seems to be against (and honestly, seems to be quite brave) and still the theocracy goes on and on.
Anyway, best of luck in this. Your people deserve better.
Thank you.
Yes, it’s complex. Firstly, the regime isn’t truly theocratic.
There are many online videos of regime family members enjoying parties and alcohol.
The second piece: I assume 10-20% of people were participating in the exploitation of our country. They kept the other 80% in control for a long time.
Yeah this is what lots of Western people don't get. The cultural / ideological gap between rulers and those being ruled appears much larger in Iran than in most other Muslim countries.
Many countries have hardcore conservative rulers AND population, but in Iran the problem is mostly just the rulers. With better government, Iran would have so much potential.
Yet another very recent account on HN claiming to be Persian and speaking about things on the ground in Iran. Can’t you guys at least try a little harder to be convincing?
Please provide sources when claiming such bold claims.
I don't understand this. What you call bold claims are easily verifiable facts. Demographic and education level statistics are widely available online, choose your source of choice.
I'm pretty sure there are also a lot of people on this site that anecdotally know this from their contact with Iranian diaspora.
Not the GP nor claiming anything , but https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Iran is what you are asking for.
>What exactly do you imagine will replace the Iranian government that is worse?
A regime that only controls the capital, leaving the rest of the country in a power vacuum leading to internal conflicts and sectarian violence that will eventually spill over the borders into Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Iraq etc...
Nothing at all could be worse!
One of the issues with Iraq was that Rumsfeld didn't want to acknowledge that it takes more personnel post-toppling (to rebuild infrastructure and institutions) than during invasion. It seems like the current government could be prone to make the same mistake.
I recommend anyone interested in this to read Cobra II. It's an excellent book.
Was ISIS better or worse than Iran's government is now?
“ There were non Muslims in senior political positions.”
What are you talking about?
Iraq is >95% Muslim, but there are a few different sub groups. With those numbers there were few in government then and now who are not Muslim.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Iraq
Its very much Muslim minority, but having even a few in senior government positions (e.g. Tariq Aziz, who was foreign minister) is an indication that its not a theocracy.
IT was a dictatorship, of course, but not a theocratic one.
Iraq’s Ba’ath party were secularists.
what are you talking about? Iran is a sophisticated country with a parliament and elections, with a powerful civil society. It has 90 million inhabitants. They graduated more women in STEM disciplines than the USA. Yes, it's a theocracy, but it's more free than Saudi Arabia for instance.
Are the Americans going to bomb the Saudis next? or only if Israel ask for it?
What exactly did I say that you disagree with?
No government and another perpetual war zone.
What does it mean "fail"?
What is the goal, to overthrow the regime, so success would mean a change of government?
(sorry, I haven't followed)
The plan is a show of power. Trump will leave in 2 years, leaving much of the world in disarray because he had no plan whatsoever, and his staff is literally out of the movie Idiocracy. Nothing of lasting value will come out of the horrors that happened in the past 3 years, and in 10 years we (the world) will look back into the present with disbelief.
> in 10 years we will look back into the present with disbelief.
You mean in 10 years, when the US is a stable and high-functioning democracy with independent media, a universally liked, charming, and polite president, supported by both the right and the left, who finally manage to overcome their minor differences? Is... is this the direction this is all heading?
Maybe the feeling will be "I can't believe I didn't get out of there while I still could".
> in 10 years we (the world) will look back into the present with disbelief.
This is a very optimistic outlook, to the point of naivete, though I really hope you are right. In reality, neither Trump nor his cronies are acting like people who imagine they will be out of power anytime soon. In 10 years the world will likely still be dealing with the fallout of this administration, if not still dealing with the administration itself.
I think both will be true. We'll be dealing with the fallout of this administration and dealing with his goons and cronies for decades while still looking back at this time in disbelief and wondering how we ever let it happen and what needs to change to prevent it in the future.
Hot take: Trump's denialism of 2020 and the use of '3rd term' is so that they can make a case that he can have a '4th term' -- that the will of the people to elect him overrides the constitutional limits of Presidency.
The place has 90 million people, how do you even deal with this without throwing the whole place into chaos?
Besides, after this the collective west has no moral high-ground anymore, the global south will resent us more than ever. If other countries go to aggressive wars, our condemnation is worthless.
Trump is completely compromised and it was probably the powers that be who told them that this is how it is going to be.
> Besides, after this the collective west has no moral high-ground anymore
They never had any morals, all for their business gains look at Middle East, Africa and Asian countries where they were involved. Europe always looked other way when US does something and vise versa.
The moral peak of the west was siding with egypt against uk/france in the suez canal dispute. Its been downhill since then. Especially nam
Chaos could be the point. That is the Libya model.
There is no such thing as the "global south" other than in the minds of westerners and westernised elites (and elites are getting less westernised). From a western viewpoint you can lump the rest of the world together, but it makes no sense from any other view point.
As for moral high ground. Compared to whom? China? Russia? Myanmar?
China
This shows a real ignorance about the true culture of Iran. It is not a Muslim culture. They want to install the son of the shah, and get back to pre-revolution culture.
But liberals will be quick to tell them they don't know best, better to just keep the oppressive ayatollah in power.
Maybe this is correct? I want this to be correct. But American entanglements in the Middle East have often overestimated the size of the “they” you’re referring to. There are many “they’s” in Iran, some of whom have been trained over time to hate the US.
So like, I think this is the right choice, but Trump was elected by MAGA to avoid these kind of entanglements even when it was the right thing to do. In fact, I think “liberals” (not progressive) support this action more than many on the right.
Traditional left/right is not useful to understanding people’s support of our foreign policy in 2026 America. Tucker Carlson will hate this way more than Chuck Schumer.
> Boots on the ground? In Iran?
Trump is a coward. He knows that boots on the ground will mean massive losses.
The only way he does that is if someone convinces him that they can go in and out very quickly.
Unlike Venezuela I doubt there are people in the right place to oust Khamenei.
Update
Turns out they bombed him
So replacing a fascist with western antagonism and constant threat on American allies, with a somewhat democratic, weak, and western aligned government?
Sounds like a good idea
It sounds like you believe that the people of Iran don't support the regime and are secretly loving america.
You can say the same thing for Iraq, but here we are.
I'm tired of Israelis killing innocent people
Then wake up
The take home message from this is that the only way for any country to be secure is to have nuclear weapons.
And not to negotiate with the US in good faith.
I don't understand Iran, Hezbollah's and the Houthis' patience with the US actually. It's absolutely shocking. After the US betrayed ALL of it's own fucking allies, in what world does it make sense to negotiate with them?
The Houthis are still "threatening" to do things today after already being decimated and Hezbollah's strength more than halved.
I don't support any of these creeps but if any of them were minimally rational, they would have all gone to total war with Israel and the US the minute they realized what Hamas was doing on October 7th. They look even more naive than Europeans at this point.
The Iranians are pragmatic. Look beyond their relationship with the US. There are other state actors that Iran wants to remain in good relations with.
They understand that a defensive war is not the same as an offensive war. Besides, going on the offensive isn’t something they - as a regional power - have the firepower or diplomatic “street cred” for.
They are already painted as a so-called irrational actor. Doing something reckless will only prove their detractors right.
The other part to this is keeping the negotiation door open. The idea is to demonstrate to other state actors that they are cool headed & rational - even in wartime conditions.
> The Iranians are pragmatic. Look beyond their relationship with the US. There are other state actors that Iran wants to remain in good relations with.
Which is why they're sending missiles and drone strikes on the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Bahrain, Kuwait and Qatar.
Rational negotiations have to be based on the relative power of the parties.
It made sense for iran to try to negotiate with the US because the alternative was a war they had no chance to win. Arguably it also made sense for them to not come to an agreement because USA wanted concessesions the Iranian regime probably couldn't do while still staying in power given how weak they are domestically.
> I don't support any of these creeps but if any of them were minimally rational, they would have all gone to total war with Israel and the US the minute they realized what Hamas was doing on October 7th.
Israel's ability to divide and conqour its enemies here has been pretty impressive.
> It made sense for iran to try to negotiate with the US because the alternative was a war they had no chance to win.
They have no chance of winning no matter what. At least inflict some damage on your enemy while you die like Hamas chose (although I disagree with the fact that they chose that for a lot of innocent people too.)
The US isn't ever going to leave anyone, let alone Iran, alone. The options are a) fight and cease to exist and b) don't fight and cease to exist.
> The US isn't ever going to leave anyone, let alone Iran, alone. The options are a) fight and cease to exist and b) don't fight and cease to exist.
Oh boy, I see we learned nothing from Afghanistan. The US will eventually leave you alone, There will be a power vacuum, and the local warlord will rise to that opportunity.
The "military operations" don't end in decisive vistory. They end with death and destruction for the young men sent into battle, and more enemies in the surrounding areas.
The US hasn't left Afghanistan alone. They were driven out of the country by force. They are still attacking it in multiple different ways and will continue to do so until they are defeated. Time did not end when the US was kicked out. They aren't just going to give up their goals.
I do not understand what argument you are trying to make. Nowhere do I say that time stands still or that the US doesn't still have a policy for Afghanistan. I'm saying that the US (and her allies, my country among them), with their war machine the likes of which has never been seen, could not bring peace and democracy to Afghanistan. Once we left, and we will always have to leave eventually, the existing structures of opression once again asserted themselves.
My country and my Government, sent people from my generation down there to die. My countrymen died in that war, and the only thing we got out of it was more enemies in the region. The Afghan is still getting persecuted for styling their beard wrong, and the Afghan woman is still getting opressed. We have nothing to show for that sacrifice.
I see no reason to believe the same thing isn't going to happen in Iran.
> Once we left, and we will always have to leave eventually, the existing structures of opression once again asserted themselves.
The US keeps coming back is what I'm saying. The US was kicked out of Iran in 1953. That's what all this is about. They will do the same to Afghanistan eventually. That's what I meant by time didn't stop. The Taliban isn't safe by any means. It's just a temporary reprieve.
> with their war machine the likes of which has never been seen, could not bring peace and democracy to Afghanistan.
As far as i understand, the US propped up an unpopular governmet that many of the locals did not like (there were rumours about turning a blind eye to moral impropriety because it was politically expediant).
The thing about democracy is its not really democracy when forced from the outside.
> As far as i understand, the US propped up an unpopular governmet that many of the locals did not like
From what I've read it's not that simple. The American system was more well liked in the cities than the alternatives. Outside the big cities, which is most of Afghanistan, the government really didn't matter much. They were still dominated by local malitias, "elders", and gangs.
To add insult to injury, the US led effort to build up an internal defense force in the country found that the only people willing to fight for the country were the very same people who had fought for the Taliban only years before.
The question left unsaid of course is if all of these problems could have been solved by a more competent actor. I would argue they couldn't have, that you can't bring peace through war, but reasonable minds can disagree.
Large military operations and wars typically kill more civilians then fighters.
> The US isn't ever going to leave anyone, let alone Iran, alone. The options are a) fight and cease to exist and b) don't fight and cease to exist.
Well i think this is true in the present moment, i think its also important to recognize that we got to this point by a series of decisions that Iran made. They boxed themselves into this corner via long term strategic blunders.
E.g. if they threatened US & israeli interests less (i.e. did not support proxy groups), US and Israel probably wouldnt find it worth it to go this far. Alternatively if they paid more attention to the home front and kept their people happy, there would be less pressure for them to not lose face during negotiations which might allow them to make concessions they cant currently.
> At least inflict some damage on your enemy while you die like Hamas chose (although I disagree with the fact that they chose that for a lot of innocent people too.)
Ultimately? If the people who are going to kill you were elected into power by those "innocent people", why would you not lash out at them too? Some twisted sense of morality or taking the high road?
I don't know what you're talking about. It sounds like you might be saying Israelis who elected Likud (and the supporting parties) are not innocent. If that's what you mean, then I agree, but that wasn't what I was referring to.
I was speaking of the Gazans who originally elected Hamas to protect them but where Hamas eventually decided to sacrifice masses of them to achieve some of their goals. They knew what would happen and did it anyway, without the people's consent.
Thank you - I appreciate that, I was indeed thinking of that, not Gaza and Hamas.
As it is now, I agree and Hamas is about the only group in Gaza that has any weaponry, so they can continue to oppress.
No such thing as total war with the USA. Without the means to nuke the USA out of existence, actually engaging them is suicide. Even if by some miracle you start winning, they can just nuke you back to the stone age, thereby ending the conflict.
Better to play the long game, corrupt them from within and wait for them to destroy themselves.
Could very well be that, on a diplomatic level, they're far more reasonable and forgiving than we've been lead to believe. Maybe in order to justify an aggressively adversarial posture against them and their interests.
But that's hard to grok without corroborating evidence. Like maybe an analogous social dynamic where the American mainstream maintains a hostile posture towards a particular ethnic group, stereotyping them as violent and irrational and criminals and parasites, and doing things to them that have triggered sustained, armed uprisings in other times and places, but who, in fact, have historically and in-aggregate been steadfast in a commitment to non-violent resistance, integration, and endurance of oppression.
Safe to say that this is the first time America's ever encountered that kind of thing, though, so I guess that we can be somewhat forgiven for not recognizing it.
> Could very well be that, on a diplomatic level, they're far more reasonable and forgiving than we've been lead to believe.
If you have been following Iran over the past two years (and even before), you would know that this is empirically true and not just a hypothetical. American propag- sorry, media does its job well.
> in what world does it make sense to negotiate with them?
The world in which America is a military superpower.
> if any of them were minimally rational, they would have all gone to total war with Israel and the US
They have been. They've been getting levelled. If the U.S. can staunch the flow of arms to the Houthis, they'll become irrelevant, too.
> The world in which America is a military superpower.
No, you missed my point. Iran dies no matter what happens. Better go down after eliminating Israel, taking out a huge % of the world's oil supply and banging up some Americans. Instead they were extremely restrained, squandering their capacities.
> They have been. They've been getting levelled. If the U.S. can staunch the flow of arms to the Houthis, they'll become irrelevant, too.
Incorrect.
> Better go down after eliminating Israel, taking out a huge % of the world's oil supply and banging up some Americans
One, they tried. They don’t have the capability. Two, that means more Iranians die. Cultures that choose pointless vengeance over pragmatic survival tend to get weeded out.
> Incorrect
Which part, why and based on whom?
> One, they tried. They don’t have the capability.
No, they didn't, not at the peak of their power. They waited until many of their tools were hit and THEN responded. Everything they've done is unfortunately in self-defense after their capabilities have been extremely degraded. They sat around and waited for Israel to strike first every time.
> Two, that means more Iranians die. Cultures that choose pointless vengeance over pragmatic survival tend to get weeded out.
Again, you're missing the point. They are going to be weeded out no matter what.
> They waited until many of their tools were hit and THEN responded
In part. Khamenei also pointlessly spent down Hezbollah supporting Hamas instead of writing the latter off and saving his firepower. If Hezbollah had maintained its massive-launch capability, instead of drip feeding rockets into interceptors as a messaging exercise, maybe this would have gone differently.
More broadly, if Iran ran itself without a C-list vengeance plot at its core and focused on its massive resources, it could have developed economically and geopolitically.
Houthi and Huzb do not have the organized armies to wage long-term war where they conquer territories. Their game plan is long term annoyance (at high casualty costs) and co-existence within a “neutral” state that provides cover and logistics for them.
> Houthi and Huzb do not have the organized armies to wage long-term war where they conquer territories.
Hezbollah did. They did it before and they were predicted by all analysts to be able to do it again, which is why Israel took the route they did with the espionage, assassinations and terrorism instead of confronting them on the battlefields.
The Houthis also are doing that right now.
The US demands were clear - no nuclear capability whatsoever, not really a hard demand to meet if you're coming "in good faith".
Iran decided to play stupid games and found out.
[flagged]
> Tell that to the 30k+ iranian protestors that were killed. > Are you actually using "in good faith" and the current horrendous iranian regime in the same sentence?
If US needs to intervene, why are they are not intervening in Ukraine? Far worse things has been happening there for 4 years.
My point is saying that the iranian regime is doing anything "in good faith" is just beyond absurd.
They have long lost the ability to claim that any of their actions are in good faith.
I don't think the Ukranian people are being supressed by their own gov
Is the argument that the U.S. should only militarily intervene when conflicts are internal within another country, as opposed to when it’s one country invading another? As that’s the opposite of the established international laws around prohibiting one state from attacking another vs the principle of non-intervention.
1. The Russian position in 2014 was that the Ukrainian people in Donbas were being oppressed by the new Ukrainian central government.
2. There's a lot of domestic political/information suppression in Ukraine but I consider this somewhat normal for a nation in a pretty existential conflict.
3. The Ukrainian military is 70-80% conscripts, increasingly of the "forcibly mobilized" variety (look up "TCC busification" for examples), with almost all military-age males banned from leaving the country. Dudes are getting beaten up, stuffed into vans, and sent to trenches to eat Russian artillery and FABs (air-to-ground bombs)....against their will. I think that definitely counts as suppression.
What is Ukraine supposed to do then?
Lose. Evacuate the government. Then mount a guerrilla, and wait for an opportunity. It'll come, most likely sooner rather than later.
Why is that unthinkable? I can understand people in the US being unable to process such a scenario, but here in Europe, there's not a single nation that wasn't off the map for some time.
I know why Ukrainians don't want that, but the demographic costs of tens to hundreds of thousands of "military age men" dying are so huge that any plausible alternative should be considered, even if it's very unpleasant.
> Why is that unthinkable?
Because it’s unthinkably stupid.
> I know why Ukrainians don't want that, but the demographic costs of tens to hundreds of thousands of "military age men" dying are so huge that any plausible alternative should be considered, even if it's very unpleasant.
And you imagine they won’t die in your guerrilla war? Or the next invasion after an emboldened Russia regroups?
You're suggesting a decades long guerrilla movement under occupation will be better for the Ukrainian people than conscription during an existential defensive war?
In terms of the number of lives lost? Yes. Guerrilla resistance is a way of trading important advantages (like control of the territory or political legitimacy) for time and human lives. Guerrillas in a favorable environment tend to suffer much lower casualties per fighter per unit of time than trench warfare along a frontline.
It's a desperate measure, but so is snatching people from the street to bus them off to trenches.
Personally, I think people can live through almost any hell (and can make a comeback later) - unless they die, in which case they can't do anything anymore. Decades of hard times, in this view, are preferable to tens of thousands of excess deaths per year over a decade.
I understand why people are reluctant to consider this - I'm just trying to show that there are alternatives to the current situation; not strictly better, but at least presenting different trade-offs. In a situation of "existential defensive war," we should discuss all plausible options, even the most controversial ones.
Not necessarily, if Ukraine surrenders then Russia will disarm them. Then when they revolt Russia will be able to bomb them with impunity because the resistance will not have the air defenses and manufacturing that the Ukrainian military now has.
Not to mention that Russia will almost certainly genocide or atleast severely oppress the Ukrainians if they win
EDIT: important to note that abandoning the trenches and the frontline does not mean surrendering, and I never said they should surrender! I suggested evacuating the govt and continuing the resistance with other means - I don't believe the actual surrender would do any good.
You're right - the risks are, of course, very significant. And we've been through that here in Poland, historically, like 3 times already. We've had quite a few failed uprisings, and we've had anti-communist guerrillas here for a while after WW2 - they were quickly (it still took 3-5 years, though!) dismantled, and most of them were killed. So the risks are real, and it is a "desperate measure".
On the other hand, it worked quite a few times: Cuba, Vietnam, Afghanistan all proved that it's possible to win (or at least not lose) using guerrilla tactics. In case of Ukraine, I think the circumstances would favor the resistance: Russia's already not doing well economically; the "severe oppression" of the Ukrainians (which I agree would follow) would cement the support for the resistance, and it would cost Russia a lot; Russia had air superiority since day one, and it didn't really help them much (it would be much more of a threat had Russia have US-level intelligence capabilities - but they domonstrably don't).
Yes, as long as it's possible, the conventional war should continue. At some point, though, the costs (all kinds of them) of continuing to fight in the field become so high that it's better to stop and switch to other ways of defending.
I'm not saying that moment is now - and it's not for me to dictate when it happens - I'm just trying to say that there are other ways of dealing with the aggressor that may (in favorable circumstances) lead to lower casualties without forgoing the hope of eventually winning. Which I wish Ukraine with all my heart, BTW.
The countries that got invaded by the US fought guerrilla because that is the only thing they could do. It wasn't some deliberate strategy to rope the US in.
And the only reason it worked out for them is that the US wasn't determined to create new states and had very low domestic support to begin with. That's not the case with Russia where this war is clearly a big deal to them.
[flagged]
> armed men wearing balaclavas drive up in vans and abduct people off the street to draft them into the military
Every country with conscription will do this if you refuse to show up.
> Both the west and the east have been pressuring them to hold elections to no avail.
Their own constitution and laws forbids it during martial law.
“Both Putin and Trump want Zelensky to violate the Ukrainian Constitution” is not the grand slam take you imagine it to be.
> Every country with conscription will do this if you refuse to show up.
Was that MP a draft dodger? The issue isn't them picking draft dodgers, it's them picking up anybody that looks like they might be a draft dodger and the tactics they employ to do it.
They haven’t had an election since the war started and routinely force unwilling conscripts into vans.
> They haven’t had an election since the war started
Because that’s what their constitution says. https://www.wilsoncenter.org/blog-post/ukraines-presidential...
> routinely force unwilling conscripts into vans
Can you clarify what you understand conscription to be?
> Because that’s what their constitution says.
“They have People’s Republic right there in the name, what are you people not getting about this?”
> Can you clarify what you understand conscription to be?
A violation of human dignity.
> A violation of human dignity.
A dodge, but we can work with that.
A yes or no question, now:
Would the citizens of a sovereign nation being forced to violate their Constitution by Putin and Trump be a “violation of human dignity” too?
> Would the citizens of a sovereign nation being forced to violate their Constitution by Putin and Trump be a “violation of human dignity” too?
If Ukraine was worth defending they would have no trouble finding men willing to die to defend it. It’s one of the most corrupt countries in the Western world, its women are being allowed to flee so that they can prostitute themselves to Arabs and Europeans, and it hasn’t had an election in 7 years. Zelensky attempted to take control of the country’s anticorruption bureau in July of 2025: “Many suggest the attempted purges are payback for NABU pursuing charges of illicit enrichment and abuse of office against former deputy prime minister Oleksiy Chernyshov, a key ally for the Office of the President.”[1] In November of 2025, Timur Mindich, a former business partner and close friend of Zelensky, fled to Israel after being accused of orchestrating a kickback operation in cooperation with ministers of Zelensky’s own government. [2][3].
You have the opportunity to go die for these people right now. An increasing number of men in Ukraine have decided they would prefer not to.
[1] - https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/ukraine-r...
[2] - https://www.timesofisrael.com/zelensky-associate-at-crux-of-...
[3] - https://www.uawire.org/ukraine-s-anti-corruption-bureau-to-s...
Well, another dodge. I tried; it's a yes/no question.
> If Ukraine was worth defending they would have no trouble finding men willing to die to defend it.
So defeating the Nazis wasn't worth doing, because we had to draft to accomplish it?
> its women are being allowed to flee
Wouldn't the alternative be "A violation of human dignity"? Forced confinement in a war zone? You really should make up your mind here.
> Well, another dodge.
I stated my position plainly.
> So defeating the Nazis wasn't worth doing, because we had to draft to accomplish it?
What you are implying is that condemning conscription as a violation of human dignity would necessarily lead me to condemn the actions that led to the downfall of a regime that itself engaged in conscription. Your mistake is in thinking that one necessarily follows from the other. I could condemn the specific act of conscription while considering the acts of the Allies in general as morally desirable, I could take a utilitarian approach and say that conscription is infinitely undesirable but the Nazis were infinitely undesirable + 1, or (as is my actual position), I can simply say that both regimes engaged in acts of evil that I am unwilling to dignify by calling “necessary.”
Issues of moral judgement are pass-fail. An act is good or it isn’t. This manner of thinking does not require you to create a gradation between the stranger who tries to rape you and the stranger that tries to kill you; they are both simply behaving immorally. The Rape of Nanjing was wrong; it did not justify the civilian deaths that occurred during the nuclear strikes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
> Wouldn't the alternative be "A violation of human dignity"? Forced confinement in a war zone?
The discussion we are having is operating from the reality that Ukrainian men are being conscripted. If a man can be compelled to serve his country (I reject this premise), it follows that a woman ought to be compelled to serve as well. The conventional justification for exempting women from conscription has been that they are necessary for the nation to reproduce itself. But the majority of these women are not likely to return to Ukraine, so what is the point of treating them any differently from the men if they are already a guaranteed loss?
This is all tangential to the point I was making; you completely ignored the corruption scandals I mentioned.
> You really should make up your mind here.
You’ve been posting here too long to think that this sort of behavior conforms to the site guidelines. I have showed great restraint in writing this reply despite your inconsiderate behavior. My next reminder will not be polite.
What does the Iranian say? If we're all about respecting documents, we should make sure we assess them all equally. The U.S. constitution has a lot to say about many of the things that are happening right now, but those are being happily ignored. We can't even respect our own constitution, the idea that we'd respect others is laughable.
Trump’s disregard for both constitutions is not a good reason for Zelensky to ignore his own.
How do you even securely hold an election during a full scale war? Thousands are outside the country or on the front lines. You'd also be creating huge targets at polling stations. Luckily their constitution recognises it's a bad idea to try.
> How do you even securely hold an election during a full scale war?
America managed it in 1864.
> why are they are not intervening in Ukraine?
...we are? Totally insufficiently. And immaterially, now [1]. But we're still providing intelligence support.
[1] https://apnews.com/article/ukraine-america-stockpiles-army-t...
why are they are not intervening in Ukraine?
Russia is already a nuclear power. They are also diminishing as a nation almost as fast as China.
Because in Ukraine if we intervene directly the US will be at war with Russia. Instead we are supplying weapons and intel.
> we are supplying weapons
To be more specific, since 2025, selling weapons.
"And everything we send over to Ukraine is sent through NATO and they pay us in full." - Trump
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/read-trumps-full-2026-...
https://app.23degrees.io/embed/j4luMuv8fnpO2frL-bar-grouped-...
And at that point the US had already provided about $66 billion directly.
Sure, that was the old US. The US that's currently invading Iran is not providing free weapons to Ukraine.
> "And everything we send over to Ukraine is sent through NATO and they pay us in full." - Trump
Which the US actively funds…so after a $66 billion advance now the costs are being shared by other vested countries.
> Tell that to the 30k+ iranian protestors that were killed
in general, "protestors" that are armed by foreigners and actively killing police officers and other government officials aren't "protestors".
And can you tell us where this 30k came from?
Yeah we care about Iranian protesters you got this right.
That's not what I said.
It's nothing to do with Iran being bad or good. US and Iran were negotiating. You don't attack mid negotiation when you're supposedly still trying to fix things by talking.
You might think Iran isn't owed the courtesy of fair negotiation but that's very shortsighted. Next country will not take US's negotiations seriously and will be, frankly, at some level justified in shooting first.
That is utter BS. If you stop negotiating in order to attack, then you are giving the enemy the advantage of knowing exactly when you will attack. This is one of the most incompetent takes I have ever heard - so much that I have to wonder if you are an Iranian agent
> Next country will not take US's negotiations seriously and will be, frankly, at some level justified in shooting first
Then they get levelled. Forgetting that America is a superpower is one way that Iran's negotiators, if they were engaging in good faith, fucked up on.
US sanctions, US/Moss instigates, makes the Iranis desparate. Irani regime (that is the result of US intervention decades ago) digs in and toughens up.
People die in the streets.
Who's to blame? The Irani regime? C'mon...
It's like crashing your car into a tree and and blaming the tree.
Also: you really think the US/Moss care about dead Iranis in the streets, other than it being a useful pretext to go to war?
Oh the US forced Iran to murder 30k civilians, it's our fault somehow.
Sanctions, instigations (admitted) lead to protests that lead to violent crack downs.
Yes. Without those sanctions + instigations the crack downs would not be needed. That's beyond obvious to me.
"needed. So Iranians protesting out of their free will, allows for a state to massacre them?
Side question what's your opinion on the war in Ukraine
It's a cuban-missle-crisis like moment for Russia. And they act accordingly.
I'm not in favor of one or the other: I just notice imperialism when I see it. And Russia+Iran have been much less aggressive than the "allied western forces" for the last 60 years, while they have a lot of reasons to dig in and toughen up not to become the next Libya/Iraq/Syria/etc.
> I just notice imperialism when I see it. And Russia
Now do Georgia and the DRC.
[flagged]
I'd have been sympathetic to that argument up until a few hours ago.
But it turns out that they were actually negotiating in better faith than their counter-party, who have just launched a war whilst still claiming to be interested in a peaceful settlement.
> I'd have been sympathetic to that argument up until a few hours ago
These are somewhat independent variables. America was open about the fact that we were trying diplomacy before force. Either, one or no sides could have been negotiating in good faith and still wound up here with that setup.
No they weren’t. Trump cancelled the previous treaty and then wanted a new agreement more favorable to the US than JCPOA.
I don’t like the mullah’s in Iran anymore than the next person but no reasonable and sane person would take that to mean “negotiating in good faith.”
> no reasonable and sane person would take that to mean “negotiating in good faith.”
Taken as a whole, Trump has not been negotiating with Iran in good faith. That does not mean that Iran has been negotiating in good faith.
That’s not how life works.
If someone takes the first underhanded step, it’s not on the victim to make amends. Iran got burned on JCPOA. Whether we like them or not, you have to address that first before moving on to meaningful talks.
> ran got burned on JCPOA. Whether we like them or not, you have to address that first before moving on to meaningful talks
Sure. I think it was probably politically impossible for Iran to negotiate in good faith. That doesn't change that they were not negotiating in good faith.
You’re conflating good faith and acceding to the US’s new demands based on past behavior.
no it doesn't "turn out that". They have a long history of hiding their nuke tech and lying while also issuing death threats to israel. Trust but verify doesn't work with this country.
> Trust but verify doesn't work with this country
I mean, the JCPOA verify seemed pretty well thought out.
you don't need an analyst to see who strikes first (and the frequency of that pattern) while diplomats are still at the negotiating table
> you don't need an analyst to see who strikes first (and the frequency of that pattern) while diplomats are still at the negotiating table
Of course you do. If the diplomats' job is to stall and never make any actual concessions, that's germane. My understanding is there was a genuine desire for diplomacy on the American side. But at least this round, Tehran never conceded on any material fronts.
> If the diplomats' job is to stall and never make any actual concessions, that's germane.
does this line of reasoning apply to the US only, or in general?
> My understanding is there was a genuine desire for diplomacy on the American side. But at least this round, Tehran never conceded on any material fronts.
they had an option to do it and still continue a diplomatic track, they aren't obliged to devote themselves to the US preferences at the US-preferred pace.
> they aren't obliged to devote themselves to the US preferences at the US-preferred pace
Of course they are not. But then you know what happens: it's on every front page.
Ok, there's clarity on the side approaching negotiations in bad faith then. "Do as I say and when I say" is not a reasonable negotiating track, it's the final ultimatum and there's clarity on who's the aggressor too.
> does this line of reasoning apply to the US only, or in general?
Are you asking serious questions? I think the evidence shows the U.S. was negotiating in good faith in the beginning (and I'm scoping to this round of negotiations only). And then it concluded there was no deal to be had, and we probably started bullshitting as well. At the same time, I think the evidence shows the Iranian side was mostly bullshitting the whole time.
> they had an option to do it and still continue a diplomatic track
Well sure. We also had the option to terminate negotiations, ratchet up sanctions and walk away. None of that changes that the Iranians weren't negotiating in good faith. (Again, based on what I've seen. Open to changing my mind. But the lack of any discussion of what Iran did in this subthread seems to underline my point.)
> they aren't obliged to devote themselves to the US preferences at the US-preferred pace
War is politics by other means. They aren't obligated to accept the other's timeline. But I wouldn't say that's negotiating either realistically or in good faith–you can't just ignore material variables because you don't like that they exist.
> Are you asking serious questions?
Just answer the question whether it applies in general as a principle. Don't "stall and never tell any actual" position on the matter.
> We also had the option to terminate negotiations, ratchet up sanctions and walk away. None of that changes that the Iranians weren't negotiating in good faith
Only according to you, based on the premise that someone didn't meet random timings that only exist in your head.
> But the lack of any discussion of what Iran did in this subthread seems to underline my point
not really, please answer the initial question I asked.
> They aren't obligated to accept the other's timeline. But I wouldn't say that's negotiating in good faith.
Exactly why? You need to be home around 5 so anyone standing in front of you and blocking you in a traffic jam aren't acting in good faith?
> Only according to you, based on the premise that someone didn't meet random timings that only exist in your head
I literally opened the top comment asking for any credible analysis that said the Iranians were negotiating in good faith. I haven't seen anything in any English, European or Asian sources that seemed to suggest they were.
So far, the only one I'm seeing arguing Iran was ready to do anything material is the Omani foreign minister. (I'm keeping an eye out for his substantiation on this point.)
> please answer the initial question I asked
Read past "are you asking serious questions." I literally answer it.
> Exactly why?
Negotiating in good faith means negotiating with a genuine intent to reach a deal. That requires acknowledging what the other side is saying and respecting reality. Someone can intentionally bullshit. Or they can be forced to bullshit because their regime at home has to save face and doesn't think it can survive being seen as giving in to America. Either way, bad faith.
> You need to be home around 5 so anyone standing in front of you and blocking you in a traffic jam aren't acting in good faith?
Bad analogy. Here's a better one: you're my landlord and I'm your tenant. (Ignoring the power imbalance between Iran and America, particularly when America is parking warships, is delusional.) You say I have ten minutes to plead for not being evicted. I genuinely don't think I did anything wrong. But I spend ten minutes talking about why your shoes are stupid. That's not engaging in good faith.
> Read past "are you asking serious questions." I literally answer it.
ok, you evaded the answer, I asked specifically about generality of the principle, you kept saying "the US did this, Iran did that". You're stalling and refusing to tell the actual answer on the question I asked, so that's germane.
> I haven't seen anything in any English, European or Asian sources that seemed to suggest they were.
too bad, get better with search
> Negotiating in good faith means negotiating with a genuine intent to reach a deal. That requires acknowledging what the other side is saying and respecting reality. Someone can intentionally bullshit. Or they can be forced to bullshit because their regime at home has to save face and doesn't think it can survive being seen as giving in to America.
Negotiating in good faith means negotiating with a genuine intent to reach a deal. That requires acknowledging what the other side is saying and respecting reality. Someone can intentionally bullshit. Or they can be forced to bullshit because their political leaders at home have to save face before their donors and don't think they can survive elections being seen as giving in to Iran.
> Bad analogy. Here's a better one: you're my landlord and I'm your tenant. (Ignoring the power imbalance between Iran and America, particularly when America is parking warships, is delusional.) You say I have ten minutes to plead for not being evicted. I genuinely don't think I did anything wrong. But I spend ten minutes talking about why your shoes are stupid. That's not engaging in good faith.
Bad analogy, I walk barefoot and I don't talk to tenants, my representatives do and they end the contract with you on a legal basis of contractual terms and that's about it. That's my property after all.
Now, you in turn are still standing in a traffic jam and getting angry at me and people around you, you claim that we all don't respect your preferences and timings, so we must be acting in bad faith.
> I asked specifically about generality of the principle, you kept saying "the US did this, Iran did that". You're stalling and refusing to tell the actual answer on the question I asked
Uh sure, yes, it generalizes. Not sure what that does for you, but yes.
> get better with search
...do you have a source? The fact that nobody in this subthread has an answer to this and is instead, as you put it, evading the question by getting distracted by whether America is negotiating in good faith should speak volumes to anyone reading this.
> Uh sure, yes, it generalizes. Not sure what that does for you, but yes.
ok, let's see
> do you have a source? The fact that nobody in this subthread has an answer to this and is instead, as you put it, evading the question by getting distracted by whether America is negotiating in good faith should speak volumes to anyone reading this.
No it shouldn't, there's no substance in your position, let alone volumes of any meaning to derive from it: "the other side must be acting in bad faith, because I don't like getting home late".
First off, I'm waiting for you to apply your previously stated principle, that you admitted to be general, to Iranian diplomats' negotiating track. And right after that, let's discuss why you did omit commenting on the other part with the substitutions around "giving in to America or Iran" and the respective interest groups having to save face.
I, as a barefoot landlord, am still wondering: why do you think your timings and preferences are the only ones to be respected?
> I'm waiting for you to apply your previously stated principle, that you admitted to be general, to Iranian diplomats' negotiating track
I've applied it. (That's why you asked for a general principle. Because I'd applied it to this specific case.) They have not been negotiating in good faith.
A case you've sustained by being unable to find any credible sources arguing Iran was negotiating in good faith.
> I've applied it. (That's why you asked for a general principle. Because I'd applied it to this specific case.) They have not been negotiating in good faith.
> My understanding is there was a genuine desire for diplomacy on the American side.
> A case you've sustained by being unable to find any credible sources
Correction: you were unable to find any credible sources, that could be your intentional bias though, as there are other patterns in your replies that suggest it too.
Also, you didn't apply the principle, you sought external validation to your preferred understanding. You appeal to external voices because there's the evident apprehension to come to inconvenient conclusions if you begin applying the principle uniformly by using your own mind.
Actually, let's see it live. Please provide the line of reasoning, starting with "If the US diplomats' job is to stall and never make any actual concessions to Iran, then ..."
> there was a genuine desire for diplomacy on the American side
By the way, how does that "genuine desire" manifest in reality? I hope it's not "I got those people in front of me extra five minutes to get lost and free my way home"
Then the US can formally state that it is ceasing all negotiations. But it will never do that - it always wants to retain the ability to execute a surprise backstab. Done so several times now.
> the US can formally state that it is ceasing all negotiations
Nobody has done this since before WWII.
> it always wants the ability to backstab
Yes. Geopolitics is anarchic. Pretty much every country has "backstabbed", and has legitimate claims to having been "backstabbed".
"If the diplomats' job is to stall and never make any actual concessions, that's germane."
As we have now learnt, this statement is utterly invalid.
Oman's top diplomat reported that negotiations were progressing quite well. They were dismayed at the American strikes. I am guessing Trump really wanted the negotiations to fail and was pissed off when Iran actually agreed to his major terms. So he launched the strikes, before the news could spread.
“Significant progress” had been made during talks in Geneva, Omani Foreign Minister Badr al-Busaidi said on Friday. His country mediated negotiations between the United States and Iran, with the latter offering assurances that it would not seek to acquire nuclear material for the production of an atomic bomb. This commitment was a “very important breakthrough” that had “never been achieved any time before,” al-Busaidi told US broadcaster CBS News, in addition to making a similar statement on X.
Yeah, Iran is not negotiating in good faith.
Not the other side that literally assassinates the negotiators in the most dishonorable treachery.
Not the other side that had agreed on the attacks weeks ago, but carried on with the sham negotiations so this attack would coincide with Purim.
And I must add, not the side that violates every ceasefire agreement. Zero honor, zero shame, only bloodlust.
> assassinates the negotiators in the most dishonorable treachery
Which negotiators have been assasinated? (They're in Geneva.)
https://mondoweiss.net/2025/09/israel-bombed-qatar-to-assass...
https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/ali-shamkhani-iranian-neg...
Not a slight against you personally, but it's genuinely frustrating discussing this with people who don't actually follow the conflict. Thank you for probing in an inquisitive manner, but please question the state propaganda, which I'm sad to say includes just about every mainstream outlet.
> it's genuinely frustrating discussing this with people who don't actually follow the conflict
My pet war is Ukraine. I get your frustration and appreciate your patience.
And I'll admit I wasn't thinking of Israel when I made that statement since Israel wasn't directly negotiating with Iran this round.
They're interchangeable the USA and Israel, especially at this time.
Of course I mean at the state level. Individuals is a very different story.
---
Hit the rate limit so I'm attaching my response to the comment below here.
---
Fair enough. I let the current situation cloud my vision, but I genuinely mean they're interchangeable. You can look up the involvement of people like Kushner, Witkoff, Barak with Israel and see where they sit in our government. Leaving aside the major donors.
If you listen to statements made by the USG spokespeople, they literally throw US servicemen under the bus to shield the IDF. That goes both for this admin and the last.
In the previous admin, it was Biden and Blinken that made a break impossible, despite landing on different political sides from Netanyahu. Another president would have cut them off at some point.
Obama was the only one who charted an independent path in recent years (post Bush. Sr.)
> They're interchangeable the USA and Israel, especially at this time
If America and Israel are interchangeable, so are Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas and the Houthis. That–I believe–is an overly simplistic approach, particularly when treating even Iran as a cohesive political entity is theoretically fraught.
Not sure Iran was doing that, but for sure Maduro wasn’t.
Not sure it affects the outcome.
North Korea looks a lot less unhinged now.
It is still unhinged, but not because of nuclear weapons. Ukraine, and now Iran, showed the whole world what happens when you don’t have a nuclear deterrence.
I think the unhinged rhetoric is, in part, a necessary partner of the nukes. Because you need to not only have nukes but have your adversaries believe that you won't hesitate to use them. If North Korea had nukes, but the US didn't believe they would use them, then they'd be getting the Iran, Syria, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, etc, etc, etc treatment.
The claim has always been made that attacking NK was off the table anyway, because they have obscene numbers of conventional artillery pointed directly at SK's capital and largest population centre, right across the DMZ; even the fastest decapitation strike wouldn't have prevented Seoul from getting flattened. Nukes definitely don't hurt but I'm not actually sure NK needed the bomb as an additional deterrent.
North Korea didn't acquire nukes to protect itself from the US, it got them to protect its regime from China. It began pursuing nukes in the 80s once its original safeguard against China, its alliance with the Soviet Union, started showing signs it would not be a viable long term strategy.
The anti-US spiel is just rhetoric. It helps save face when dealing with China, which it still utterly depends on, and it goes along with decades of internal propaganda lionizing China to its own people. Indeed North Korea wants heavy US military presence in the region, maintaining its status with regards to China as a strategically important buffer state which can act with plausible deniability instead of a resource rich neighbor with uncooperative leadership.
If North Korea only had conventional forces, what would stop China from installing a loyal puppet? The international community wouldn't lift a finger, threats to South Korea would only further alienate the regime, China could bring its full might to bear, the DPRK military would have no effective means to retaliate and would be more likely to turn on the regime than mount a credible defense, and North Korea's own people would probably welcome the change which would dramatically reduce oppression and increase prosperity. Nukes are the only way for a small number of regime loyalists to make such an operation too costly for Beijing to justify.
This is also why talks with the US have utterly "failed" for decades - there is nothing the US can offer that would provide the same security guarantee for the regime and the status quo is advantageous to the US for multiple reasons: justifying its large military presence in the region, justifying its efforts to develop and deploy ever more capable ballistic missile defense systems, and North Korea not being completely under China's control.
Exactly, the threat of using nukes needs to be credible in order to work as a deterrence.
That doesn’t make sense. Even if you are almost certain they won’t use the nuke, do you really want to take that gamble?
NK didn’t get nuclear weapons until several years after the invasion of Iraq, and it was probably longer still before they had a viable delivery system. The nukes clearly aren’t the only reason they’re left alone.
I mean, nothing unhinged here, nukes are only ever useful if other countries believe you will use them when attacked. Same thing for North Korea as the US, France, etc. (Well, nuclear war is unhinged, but...).
Do you believe it’s a good thing North Korea has the bomb?
It’s good for them. That’s the point they’re making. All this shows that for many countries nuclear proliferation is the way to guarantee their safety.
Who is "them"? Definitely not the people.
"safety" for whom? Definitely not the people. They starve.
The people arent being pppressed by the bomb, but by their leaders. The odea that the US would liberate all peoples from tyranical rulers is naive. The US routinely installs and supports tyrants who allign with their geopolitical goals. Pol pot, pahlavi, pinochet, marcos, suharto, seko, the banana republics. Nukes didnt enable those guys, the US did
> "safety" for whom? Definitely not the people. They starve.
Better to have privation than to get bombed and massacred in large numbers.
Was it better for jews to starve in concentration camps rather than to get bombed by the allies? If not, what's different this time?
My bad - I didn't know Iran was starving Jews to death in concentration camps. Can you point me to a source ?
They love to project the past crimes of the West onto the East as a justification for their current crimes.
If bombing Germany was a crime, then call me the world's greatest war crime supporter.
This is a comment sub-thread about DPRK
Safety for whomever controls the nukes, whether autocratic (Iran) or democratic (Ukraine).
Russia would not have attacked Ukraine if they still had their nuclear weapons and Iran wouldn’t be under attack now if they had them too.
I’m not saying whether it’s goods or bad that any or specific countries have nuclear weapons, that’s beside the point. The point is that this attack sends the signal that the only way to guarantee your safety is to have them.
Kinda? I can't help but notice that I'm not particularly worried about my friends or family being sent off to fight North Korea anytime soon.
I believe that it is a rational step they have taken as an act of deterrence.
I don't believe any country having nuclear weapons is good.
If you are the leaders of North Korea, yes
What about its people?
Yes. Dictatorships suck, but what sucks more is a civil war powered by foreign governments doing a proxy war.
Syria is the prime example of this. A major reason for the civilian slaughter was foreign intervention trying regime change.
> Dictatorships suck, but what sucks more is a civil war powered by foreign governments doing a proxy war
It's a macabre study. But one could honestly argue that several countries in the latter category's populations are better off than North Korea's.
Maybe after the civil war, certainly not during it. If I had to pick where to live, I'd pick North Korea over Ukraine right now because it's a lot easier to live in a dictatorship than an active war zone. (This isn't me saying I want to live in NK, I don't).
But I'd also point out that a lot of what makes it really suck to live in the worst places in the world isn't often the government but rather the international relationships. Turkey has a particularly brutal government, but it's Nato and EU ally status means that the civilians enjoy modern trade and travel.
The worst times to be in NK was the 90s when there was an ongoing famine and the US refused to lift sanctions thinking it'd spark a civil war that overthrew the regime. It didn't.
>I'd pick North Korea over Ukraine right now because it's a lot easier to live in a dictatorship than an active war zone
You can live a perfectly normal life in Kiev. It’s not exactly an active war zone, you see luxury cars worth hundreds of thousands of dollars on every corner. You can buy bottles of Petrus in 24 hour supermarkets and eat decent food at countless fancy restaurants.
Goodwine in Kiev will also put US luxury grocers to shame. Ukraine might be at war, but the quality of life is hardly bad.
> I'd pick North Korea over Ukraine right now because it's a lot easier to live in a dictatorship than an active war zone
To each their own. I wouldn't. In part because once you're in North Korea, you're not getting out. That isn't the case for Ukraine, Syria or any of the other war-torn countries.
If you are a male between the ages of 17 and 55, you are not getting out of Ukraine right now.
It'd depend on my status. There are a lot of people who can't just get out of Ukraine or Syria. The average citizen in Syria had no means to just flee. I'd assume in my above scenario that I'm one of the masses that can't escape.
NK does actually allow people to leave, mostly to china and mostly after they attain a high social class. A decent number of tourists, including US citizens, go on tours of NK.
> NK does actually allow people to leave, mostly to china and mostly after they attain a high social class
I didn't know this. Source? I thought Pyongyang controls its elites' movement even more strictly than its commoners'.
[1] Don't get me wrong, movement is highly restricted, but it's not impossible. AFAIK, it's mostly afforded to the elites in NK.
I guess I shouldn't have written leave, but to visit other countries. I don't think you can change your citizenship.
[1] https://www.youngpioneertours.com/can-north-koreans-travel/
You're making the mistake of correlating these proxy wars with any later improvements in these countries' living conditions. War is always detrimental to quality of life.
> You're making the mistake of correlating these proxy wars with any later improvements in these countries' living conditions
...nobody argued the proxy wars were good for those countries. Just that if you're turned into a random local in one of those theatres, chances are you're better off a decade or two later than if you're turned into a random North Korean.
If you had to live in gaza or north korea right now, which would you choose?
> If you had to live in gaza or north korea right now, which would you choose?
Me as me? Gaza. Because I'd get out. That's a bullshit answer, though, so I'll answer as a local. And there, it's honestly a coin toss because Gaza is possibly the shittiest war zone outside Africa right now. But if you said North Korea or Syria during its civil war? North Korea or Myanmar? I'm going with not Pyongyang.
The only one where I'd honestly choose North Korea hands down is Sudan, because that's the one nobody really gives a shit about which means it's going to go on forever.
How would you get out? It’s impossible. Every exit is shut.
> How would you get out? It’s impossible. Every exit is shut.
Of course it isn't, it's entirely porous to the IDF. I'm an American citizen. If I were teleported to Gaza I'd probably be fine. At material risk of being fucked up. But I'd take my chances there over being an American teleported to North Korea.
Any attempt to walk towards a controlled point or border will get you shot inside 2-3km. Your passport will be removed from your body before it is destroyed. You were never there.
Rockets can’t tell what citizenship you are. The fact is no one is launching rockets onto North Korea.
> Rockets can’t tell what citizenship you are
Sure. And yes, it's risky. But there are two million people in Gaza and half a dozen to a dozen, on average, being killed each day. If I, literally I, were teleported into Gaza, my primary operational concern would be avoiding Hamas. (My primary operational goal, getting to an internet-connected device.)
> no one is launching rockets onto North Korea
Correct, their security forces are undisrupted.
> Dictatorships suck, but what sucks more is a civil war powered by foreign governments doing a proxy war.
Are you sure about this part?
Absolutely. No question.
War isn't glamorous. It's mechanized death and torture destroying communities, families, and loved ones. And when it's powered by foreign governments, it's worse. Because the two colliding sides are armed to the gills with the best weapons in murder along with mercenaries and no oversight.
Living in a dictatorship is hard but doable, There are literally generations of people that have survived and thrived in that sort of an environment. It's not preferable, for sure, but you still have your family, friends, and neighbors. None of them are trying to actively kill you. So long as you follow the rules, life in a dictatorship is generally predicable and the odds of the state making you specifically an example are low.
The only people who thrive in a dictatorship are its enforcers. And by the way a dictatorship needs quite a lot of them. That's how, decades after its fall, you get voices saying it wasn't all that bad, there were some nice things actually, or we should do it again.
And also your neighbors absolutely will sell you out.
I agree. A foreign powered civil war is worse than that.
Thriving in a dictatorship, even not as an enforcer, is possible. It's a worse life in general but still a life you can live.
Generally speaking, the only life that truly sucks in a dictatorship is if you become an enemy of the state. That doesn't generally apply to all citizens because, if it did, a dicatorship would quickly end in revolt. That is the theory behind strong sanctions. It's believed that if you starve a nation eventually the citizens revolt. The problem is it takes little resources to keep people happy, ultimately.
So if a dictatorship decides to invade a neighboring democratic country, the people there should not fight and let them take over, because war is worse than dictatorship, right?
A authoritarian regime starting wars isn't one I want to live in either. That's why I don't want to live in Israel.
Iran has had civil unrest over the last year, they weren't in the position politically to be doing much of anything to the "democracy" of Israel.
The entire reason for the US Israel attack on Iran is because of that civil unrest, not because Iran was a threat, but because both nations see an opportunity to install a puppet government that does their bidding.
What remains to be seen is if Russia sees a similar opportunity and we end up with another Syria.
You evade answering a simple question.
It’s because your logic is flawed. It doesn’t hold up a very simple scrutiny test.
Sorry if my answer seemed evasive. I was reading into your question something not stated
> the people there should not fight and let them take over, because war is worse than dictatorship, right?
No, I think the people should fight back, obviously. A country being actively invaded has a right to fight back. The war isn't their choosing and laying down arms is a mistake because captured civilians are rarely treated well after a war.
I'm specifically talking about an established dictatorship vs war. Specifically, as I said, a civil war which is a proxy war for foreign agents. Starting a war to end a dictatorship is bad. A dictatorship starting a war is bad. However, a dictatorship not starting wars is ultimately a better place to live vs anywhere under and active civil war.
The leadership in North Korea’s clearly doesn’t prioritize them.
The fact that NK possess nuclear weapons strongly discourages external players from attacking it. It does not in any way change the tools NK has at its disposal domestically.
If you're trying to say that had NK not had nukes we would bomb it for 'humanitarian purposes' or 'on behalf of its people' then I have a couple of bridges for sale.
> If you're trying to say that had NK not had nukes we would bomb it for 'humanitarian purposes' or 'on behalf of its people' then I have a couple of bridges for sale.
You think the US would just leave them alone as a communist, sovereign country without nukes, bordering china???
I think any US intervention in NK would not be to help the people of NK, that's all.
Theyve had the bomb for a while and south korea still exists and is thriving. I have seen alot of batshit insane talk from them, but no real negative consequences for any other country. So it hasnt really been a negative for anyone. I dont think theyll use it first either because they know theyll be glassed if they do
Now if they didnt have the bomb, i dont think they would have lasted this long. I think the US would have gone and "democratized" them to smithereens a while ago.
Nuclear weapons have a very brief transition from “everything is fine and nothing bad has happened” to “we’re completely fucked.” The fact that nothing has happened yet isn’t very reassuring to me with all the ways things can go wrong. The threat of retaliation certainly puts a damper on a first strike, but there’s always the possibility of a mistake, someone feeling backed into a corner, or not believing the consequences, or just going a little crazy. The more countries that have them, the more likely this becomes.
South Korea has the capability to build nuclear weapons very quickly if needed, they're a nuclear threshold state.
Israel has nuclear weapons. Did it keep them safe?
From invasion or forced regime change? Yes (But I don't think the nukes actually helped in that regard).
It did not keep them safe from the invasion 2 years ago.
Those attacks were horrific, but certainly nothing that rises to the level of an "invasion".
They were invasion by definition: Palestinians crossed into Israel, invaded villages and towns. How come it's not an invasion?
Usually an invasion entails an intent to capture territory and occupy. A suicide terror attack is qualitatively different even if it’s large-scale. The boots on the ground could just as well have been rockets, whereas an invasion needs a longer term presence.
Palestinians crossed into israel from israel (occupied territories by israel). How can you invade yourself?
> occupied territories by Israel)
Gaza was not occupied. There was zero military presence in Gaza prior to October 7th.
Aim of an invasion is by definition to conquer.
I think the meaning of 'invasion' in the context of nuclear deterrence refers to an attempt to occupy.
Pretty safe if you ask me, judging from their…location and historical context.
The last time Israel faced an existential threat from its neighbors was 1973. The timeline isn’t entirely clear, but that’s right around the time when they started to have operational nuclear weapons. Many factors contributed to their relative safety since then, but the timing certainly works out for nuclear weapons helping to make that true.
Historically, Israelis have been much safer than most of their neighbors Oct. 7th notwithstanding.
Safer from what?
Israeli neighbors that are at peace with Israel are safe as well, e.g., Egypt and Jordan.
And what about Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon? And, in this latest case, Iran?
> And what about Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon? And, in this latest case, Iran?
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.
They're less safe on as demonstrated by the casualties they've sustained in repeated wars, inter-state and civil wars.
Iraq and Iran are both in the region, if not directly sharing borders with Israel.
So to answer the question I originally responded do, "did nuclear weapons make Israel safer", the answer is evidently yes.
Well, proximity is a factor...
Those who paid any attention to Ukraine already figured it out
"In the world of strategic studies, there has been a return to ‘theories of [nuclear] victory’. Their proponents draw on the work of past scholars such as Henry Kissinger, who wondered in his 1957 book Nuclear Weapons and Foreign Policy if extending the American deterrent to all of Europe at a time when the threat of total destruction hung over the US itself would actually work: ‘A reliance on all-out war as the chief deterrent saps our system of alliances in two ways: either our allies feel that any military effort on their part is unnecessary or they may be led to the conviction that peace is preferable to war even on terms almost akin to surrender ... As the implication of all-out war with modern weapons become better understood ... it is not reasonable to assume that the United Kingdom, and even more the United States, would be prepared to commit suicide in order to defend a particular area ... whatever its importance, to an enemy’.
One of the recommended solutions was to bring tactical nuclear weapons back into the dialectic of deterrence extended to allied territories, so as to give US decision makers a range of options between Armageddon and defeat without a war. Global deterrence was ‘restored’ by creating additional rungs on the ladder of escalation, which were supposed to enable a sub-apocalyptic deterrence dialogue — before one major adversary or the other felt its key interests were threatened and resorted to extreme measures. Many theorists in the 1970s took this logic further, in particular Colin Gray in a 1979 article, now back in fashion, titled ‘Nuclear Strategy: the case for a theory of victory’.
...
In 2018 Admiral Pierre Vandier, now chief of staff of the French navy, offered a precise definition of this shift to the new strategic era, which has begun with Russia’s invasion: ‘A number of indicators suggest that we are entering a new era, a Third Nuclear Age, following the first, defined by mutual deterrence between the two superpowers, and the second, which raised hopes of a total and definitive elimination of nuclear weapons after the cold war’" [1].
I think the chances we see a tactial nuclear exchange in our lifetimes has gone from distant to almost certain.
[1] https://mondediplo.com/2022/04/03nuclear
Who will be launching the tactical nuclear attacks? The US is no longer equipped with tactical nukes, as I understand it (corrections welcome).
Now that the last generation with direct experience of the Nazis is leaving us, it seems like the populace is forgetting the horrors of that time. That also happens to be the last generation with direct experience of nuclear weapons used in war.
100% -- unfortunate, sad, and entirely predictable
I just want to expand on this.
1. According to the US and Israel, Iran has been a week away from having nuclear weapons for at least 34 years [1];
2. It's quite clear Iran could've developed nuclear weapons but chose not to. I actually think was a mistake. The real lesson from the so-called War on Terror was that only nuclear weapons will preserve your regime (ie Norht Korea);
3. Israel is a nuclear power. It's widely believed that Israel first obtained weapons grade Uranium by stealing it from the US in the 1960s [2];
4. In a just world, people would hang for what we did to Iran in 1953, 1978-79, the Iran-Iraq War and sanctions (which are a sanitized way of saying "we're starving you"); and
5. The current round of demands include Iran dismantling its ballistic missile program. This is because the 12 day war was a strategic and military disaster for the US and Israel.
Israel has a multi-layered missile defence shield. People usually talk about Iron Dome but that's just for shooting down small rockets. Separate layers exist for long-range and ballistic missiles (eg David's Sling, Arrow-2, Arrow-3). In recent times the US has complemented these with the ship-borne THAAD system.
Even with all this protection, Iran responded to the unprovoked attacks of the 12-day war by sending just enough ballistic missiles to overwhelm the defences, basically saying "if we have to, we can hit Israel".
Many suspect that the real reason the US negotiated an end to the 12 day war was because both Israel and the US were running cirtically low on the munitions for THAAD and Israel's missile defence shield. You can't just quickly make more either. Reportedly that will take over a year to get replacements.
Thing is, pretty much all of this missile defence technology is about to become obsolete once hypersonic missiles become more widespread, which is going to happen pretty soon. I suspect that's a big part of why the US and Israel are now trying so desperately to topple the regime and turn Iran into a fail-state like Somalia or Yemen.
I'm not normally one to encourage nuclear proliferation but when it's the only thing the US will listen to, what choice do countries have?
[1]: https://www.aljazeera.com/gallery/2025/6/18/the-history-of-n...
[2]: https://thebulletin.org/2014/04/did-israel-steal-bomb-grade-...
Yes, because "what choice did Iran have" other than:
1. Routinely calling for death to Israel and America, turning it into part of the national curriculum and sowing hate
2. Funding, training, supplying and directing multiple violent proxy organizations around the region which attacked Israel and undermined their own countries (Hezbollah in Lebanon and Syria, Houthis in Yemen, Hamas in West Bank and Gaza, other organizations in Iraq)
3. Enriching Uranium to clearly non-civilian grade in multiple militarily hardened facilities;
4. Directly attacking multiple Jewish targets around the world (like the AMIA and then embassy bombings in Argentina)
5. Attacking neighboring countries with ballistic and cruise missiles, like the attacks on Saudi Aramco in 2019
6. Holding international shipping and energy markets hostage by threatening to attack ships and tankers in the Persian Gulf
7. Abusing their own citizens, including public executions, persecutions and extreme violence
8. Providing support to Russia in their efforts in Ukraine, and especially drones used for indiscriminate dumb attack waves against civilians and infrastructure
Now we have people arguing that if they had just gotten nukes then they could have continued doing all of that.
> Now we have people arguing that if they had just gotten nukes then they could have continued doing all of that.
And where are they wrong?
> where are they wrong?
Probably in all of it. Iran wouldn't have a MAD arsenal, they'd have a small handful that they could pop on a ballistic. We know we can shoot down Iran's missiles. And we know they can't reach America. I'm entirely unconvinced that we wouldn't have launched an attack on Iran even if they had nuclear weapons, because we think we can intercept them, and if we can't, they aren't hitting the homeland.
And on the off chance this defense doesn’t work? No system is perfect. Put another way, would the risk calculation for an attack on Iran be as easy as it is right now?
The point of having nuclear capabilities is to make the risk calculation more difficult. It doesn’t mean you need to have state of the art capabilities.
> on the off chance this defense doesn’t work? No system is perfect
Someone in the Middle East gets hit.
> would the risk calculation for an attack on Iran be as easy as it is right now?
The risk calculation isn't easy today. Nukes would make it harder. But I'm pushing back on the notion that it would make it a non-starter.
(MAD arsenals and long-range ICBMs, on the other hand, make it a non-starter.)
> Someone in the Middle East gets hit.
Wow so no big deal then right?
Jesus Christ dude
> so no big deal then right?
Are you arguing it would be in this White House?
Assuming I get your point, I would nevertheless say I think most White House admins would care: would not one of those someones in the Middle East who gets hit perhaps include Israel?
I have no idea what strategic value the nation of Israel has for the nation of the USA, but there is clearly strong cultural and political relevant of the former to the latter.
The difference between shooting down a conventionally armed missile and shooting down a nuclear armed missile is that the former will explode in the air or not at all, whereas the latter is quite likely to still be able to detonate when it hits the ground.
> whereas the latter is quite likely to still be able to detonate when it hits the ground
If they’re using a novel, supercritical core mechanism, maybe. Otherwise, unlikely. (You would get fallout instead.)
> whereas the latter is quite likely to still be able to detonate when it hits the ground
If they’re using a novel, supercritical core mechanism, maybe. Otherwise, unlikely.
> 4. Directly attacking multiple Jewish targets around the world (like the AMIA and then embassy bombings in Argentina)
Why would Iran attack Argentina? There's plenty of Jewish Iranian citizens. Did they run out of people to attack?
> Why would Iran attack Argentina?
There is a hardline element in the IRGC that personally profits from autarky. If the Iranian markets opened to the world, it would decimate their incomes.
> Thing is, pretty much all of this missile defence technology is about to become obsolete once hypersonic missiles become more widespread, which is going to happen pretty soon.
I think you'll have to be more specific.
Or I guess to compare with your other observation: """Even with all this protection, Iran [sent] enough ballistic missiles to overwhelm the defences""" -- It's not a binary of "have missile defense or not => every missile will be shot down". An amount of missile defense will make it harder for missiles to successfully hit a target.
Similarly with hypersonic missiles, it's not the binary of "I have a missile that's difficult to defend against, I win".
Having a sword which can defeat a shield isn't in itself sufficient to obsolete the shield. (Infantry can be killed with bullets, yet infantry remain an important part of fighting despite that).
Considering the rationale for this war that kind of seems false
> Considering the rationale for this war that kind of seems false
The spring to a nuke is riskier than ever. That doesn't change that nuclear sovereignty is a tier above the regular kind, this is something every one of the global powers (China, Russia and America) and most regional powers (Israel) have explicilty endorsed.
[dead]
This has nothing to do with nuclear weapons. The only problem here is that iran has petrol. Thats it.
This is an incredibly facile take on the situation. Iran has been a destabilizing regional power with imperial aims for 47 odd years. They even murdered the PM of Lebanon via their proxy army. They’ve been poking the bear for decades, and there are serval occasions where it may have happened sooner in an alternative universe. Had McCain become president in ‘08 we may well have seen a land invasion from US positions in Iraq, as the Iranian Quds force was already fighting US soldiers in Iraq. The whole DoD is now full of Iraq veterans who hate the Iranian government to their bones. It’s shocking this didn’t happen sooner, and probably only didn’t because of luck.
> Iran has petrol
More than taking control of Iranian petrol, this is probably more an attempt at cutting off China access to it (and also generally eliminating one of their allies), same as for the Venezuelan invasion.
You've completely misunderstood the poster's point. Nations are being taught that without nuclear weapons you could be attacked in this new world.
I used to believe that, I think there are also some very ambitious people nearby who want to use US armed forces for their benefit - as any rational player who has influence over such power would attempt.
Israel has a lot of nukes (while they pretend they don't) and that does not prevent them from being attacked.
It probably prevents armed warships from attacking them. It doesn't, as you correctly point out, prevent guerilla warfare.
This is part of why we help defend Israel, to constrain wars to conventional means.
In the first Gulf War, we placed the Patriot batteries around Israel, as they said that if an Iraqi biological or chemical SCUD attack hit Tel Aviv, they would vitrify Baghdad.
Having nukes doesn't prevent _anyone_ from attacking you, but it does constrain those attacks to conventional means. And what if you pulled off a decapitation attack against Tel Aviv? Well their fleet of nuclear capable subs would make you pay.
So should the US defend North Korea in case of a conflict with South Korea?
Thanks for pointing this out. I hear people say this over and over, if Iran only had nukes it would be safe to continue propagating terrorism as it has been doing. It’s obviously wrong, as you point out. Russia has nukes. India has nukes. Having nuclear weapons doesn’t mean you can do whatever you want, if anything it brings a higher level of scrutiny. A nuclear Iran would be a serious problem for many and that’s why it’s so critical to make sure that doesn’t happen, not just for Israel but the entire planet.
Maybe it is scale.
Maybe Nukes do not prevent terrorism, or gorilla warfare.
Having Nukes would prevent a large strike from another state, like what US just did.
Nobody is doing this large scale of bombing on any of the nuclear powers.
There's only one country that has repeatedly attacked its neighbors and has decided to occupy and seize land from two of them while actively calling for and carrying out strikes in many others all in the last two years.
It ain't Iran.
Iran effectively controlled Lebanon, Yemen, Syria and Iraq through its proxies and puppet regimes. Right, it didn't annex territory, but it complete subjugated these countries and their population to their goals.
Except none of that ever happened. That's an exaggerated, racist attempt to hand-wave away the realities behind several distinct countries.
Nothing racist or exaggerated in Hizbollah in Lebanon having far more military power than the country itself, and taking orders directly from the Iranians, dragging Lebanon into a war it never asked for.
My totally unsubstantiated conspiracy theory is that several of those are sitting in shipping containers in the US and Europe, and that is part of the reason that their interests drive all western foreign policy, despite their open hostility to their 'allies'.
On another note, Canada is the only country that ever decided against having them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_and_weapons_of_mass_des...
You missed like, *checks notes* 186 other non-nuclear-armed states parties to the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
https://www.iaea.org/topics/non-proliferation-treaty
Thanks I wasn’t thorough in my readings, appreciate the correction!
Ukraine literally had them and gave them up
South Africa got rid of its nukes after the apartheid ended.
How does that factor in here right now? We haven't used or threatened to use nukes, and at least the public case made is in part that Iran is trying to get nukes and shouldn't.
I say "public case" specifically here, I don't buy that justification but it is still the one being used.
How does it factor in? How doesn't it?
If Iran had deployable nukes, would they get invaded?
Name a country that got bombed to credibly destroy the government, and had nukes. I'll wait.
It likely wouldn't be kinetic, but nukes didn't stop us from chipping away at the Soviet Union.
I could be wrong, but I don't buy the public story that this is about regime change. You don't topple a government with air superiority alone, and you don't do it in a matter of days. I also don't expect the US would be okay letting the Iranian people pick who comes next. We have a history of installing puppets and that similarly doesn't happen only via bombing runs.
> I also don't expect the US would be okay letting the Iranian people pick who comes next.
Khamenei: Dead. Ahmadinejad: Dead.
Maybe the US/Israel have a list of people they plan on making "ineligible" to run Iran? Then let the people choose from whoever's left?
We'll see how many people get ticked off the checklist, but if it's a long list then I would say regime change is a more plausible story.
Will it be as obvious as Karzai? Probably not.
> It likely wouldn't be kinetic, but nukes didn't stop us from chipping away at the Soviet Union.
So all it stops is kinetic attacks? Do you not think that's a big deal? I'm pretty sure Iran and Khamenei think that's a big deal.
What do you mean by "How does that factor in here right now?"?
It pretty obviously does. How does it NOT?
> I don't buy the public story that this is about regime change.
They had Khamenei killed.
But this is also a topic very different from the nukes one.
> If Iran had deployable nukes, would they get invaded?
Honestly, maybe? Like if we had high confidence we knew where they were, and Israel consented to the attack, I could absolutely see the U.S. trying to take it out in storage.
If Iran had a nuke that could hit the U.S., I'd say no. But that's a stretch from "deployable nukes."
> Name a country that got bombed to credibly destroy the government, and had nukes
Pedantically, Ukraine.
> if we had high confidence we knew where they were
That's a very big gamble. They only need to have hide one on a cargo ship and the attacker is going to have a Very Bad Day.
Nobody's made that gamble yet. Yes, there's been kinetics between India and Pakistan, and Iran sending missiles at Israel, but not a credible threat to the state.
> Pedantically, Ukraine.
Not sure when you mean. Did they get bombed while they had physical control in the early 90s? They never had operational control, but now that they're being bombed they don't have even physical control of nukes.
My previous comment:
The most salient lesson of the post-Cold War era: Get nukes or die trying.
A nation's relationship to other states, up to and especially including superpowers, is completely different once it's in the nuclear club. Pakistan can host bin Laden for years and still enjoy US military funding. North Korea can literally fire missiles over South Korea and Japan and get a strongly-worded letter of condemnation, along with a generous increase in foreign aid. We can know, for a fact, that the 2003 Iraq War coalition didn't actually believe their own WMD propaganda. If they thought that Saddam could vaporize the invasion force in a final act of defiance, he'd still be in power today. Putin knows perfectly well that NATO isn't going to invade Russia, so he can strip every last soldier from the Baltic borders and throw them into the Ukrainian meat grinder.
Aside from deterring attack, it also discourages powerful outside actors from fomenting revolutions. The worry becomes who gets the nukes if the central government falls.
Iran's assumption seems to have been that by permanently remaining n steps away from having nukes (n varying according to the current political and diplomatic climate), you get all the benefits of being a nuclear-armed state without the blowback of going straight for them. But no, you need to have the actual weapons in your arsenal, ready to use at a moment's notice.
My advice for rulers, especially ones on the outs with major geopolitical powers: Pour one out for Gaddafi, then hire a few hundred Chinese scientists and engineers and get nuked up ASAP.
> My advice for rulers … hire a few hundred Chinese scientists and engineers and get nuked up ASAP.
Just need one flight from Pyongyang. Why suggest involving a major power given that you’ve just laid out the strategic need for nuclear weapons to deter interference from… major powers? Your post lacks coherency.
opportunity cost-wise, iran could have poured all the money they did in nuclear enrichment instead into missiles, air defense, etc, and they would not be having as much problems as they do now.
nuclear enrichment is extraordinarily expensive and really not all that great of a deterrent when you have them. just look at fairly recent tussels between india, pakistan and china. Russia was invaded and didnt nuke ukraine.
I thought Ukraine surrendered her nukes?
Ukraine never had nukes. It's like saying Alabama had to give up their nukes after gaining independence
This is wrong. The gotcha underpinning this point denies reality of the situation, that Ukraine had warheads and the technical capability to take control of those warheads. There is no discussion here.
That's an idiosyncratic take on the facts that basically everyone else agrees to interpret otherwise.
Ukraine and weapons of mass destruction
Ukraine, formerly a republic of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) from 1922 to 1991, once hosted Soviet nuclear weapons and delivery systems on its territory.[1] The former Soviet Union had its nuclear program expanded to only four of its republics: Belarus, Kazakhstan, Russia, and Ukraine. After its dissolution in 1991, Ukraine inherited about 130 UR-100N intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM) with six warheads each, 46 RT-23 Molodets ICBMs with ten warheads apiece, as well as 33 heavy bombers, totaling approximately 1,700 nuclear warheads that remained on Ukrainian territory.[2] Thus Ukraine became the third largest nuclear power in the world (possessing 300 more nuclear warheads than Kazakhstan, 6.5 times less than the United States, and ten times less than Russia)[3] and held about one third of the former Soviet nuclear weapons, delivery system, and significant knowledge of its design and production.[4] While all these weapons were located on Ukrainian territory, they were not under Ukraine's control.[5]
In 1994, Ukraine agreed to transfer these weapons to Russia for dismantlement and became a party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, in exchange for economic compensation and assurances from Russia, the United States and the United Kingdom to respect Ukrainian independence and sovereignty within its existing borders.[6][7] Almost twenty years later, Russia, one of the parties to the agreement, invaded Ukraine in 2014 and subsequently also from 2022 onwards.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine_and_weapons_of_mass_de...
Btw, reference [5], used to justify the absurd claim that those weapons were in Ukraine's territory but not under its control, goes like this:
{{cite Hansard |url=https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199293/cmhansrd/1993... |title=Nuclear Weapons |speaker=[[Jeremy Hanley]] |position=Minister of State for the Armed Forces |house=[[House of Commons (United Kingdom)|House of Commons]] |volume=227 |date=June 22, 1993 |column=154 |access-date=September 9, 2018 |quote=Some weapons are also possessed by Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Belarus, but these are controlled by the Commonwealth of Independent States.}}
So it's basically the words of a UK MP assuring his audience that, nooo, don't worry, Ukraine doesn't control its WMD.
If nukes are so good why Israel isn't safe? Or in other words you overestimate how useful nukes are. On contrary for Iran them having nukes mean Israel have to guess if coming missiles contain nukes or not and whatever to strike back with their own nukes where as now they can freely sand missiles without escalation concerns.
Israel isn't safe? They are probably the most well defended country on the earth. A very capable domestic military and the full power of the US as an attack dog willing to do their bidding.
They have good defence, but:
- it costs money and attention
- good is not the same as perfect (there are some casualties from time to time)
Nukes do not help against guerilla warfare: their destructive power is so big that they are really unreasonable attack weapon, and only a deterring factor instead.
They protect against being "policed" by big world countries.
Eg. if Ukraine still had nuclear weapons, Russia would not have been invading them (or are they "protecting" them, as promised when they took their nuclear arsenal for destruction?). If Iran or Iraq had nuclear weapons, they would not have been bombed by US.
>If nukes are so good why Israel isn't safe?
Israeli nukes are the main reason we haven't had regime change in Tel Aviv at the hands of a Turkish/Egyptian/Saudi/Iranian coalition. Israeli nukes are why Iran has had to settle into a pattern of slow, distant, annoyance via proxy forces (which lack a capability for existentially challenging the IDF).
Or we can all shoot ourselves in the face. Faster, cheaper, and guaranteed to work every time. Ish.
Anti-nuclear proliferation should now be treated as crime against humanity. Nuclear proliferation is only way to ensure world peace. Every single country should get nukes and capability to use them against each others. And be fully ready to do it.
I hope you and I never get the opportunity to learn how this would end. We’ve had nukes on Earth for less than 100 years, do you expect the next few thousand to go that well? Do you think in that time, nobody will ever roll a nat 1 on a wisdom check?
https://www.angryflower.com/422.html
Let's bring this idea to an ultimate level- each country to have a warhead able to wipe everything, sort of project Sundial...
After all if your country is too small, it may be worthless to have nukes that probably would be destroyed by neighbors on launch...
That would work. Reasonable power balance would be reached. And negotiations could happen from equal perspective.
One step further: every man, woman and child should have a launch button.
(My bet would be: max one day)
Can't tell if sarcasm
With maps:
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4g0pnnj8xyo
Again, little to no information for the US public. No approval from Congress.
Calling for the people to rise up. You can't bomb your way into regime change. Are we supplying arms to groups?
Is there a plan beyond pointless death and regional chaos the president would like to share?
> Are we supplying arms to groups?
Yes. The US supports the monarchy, the Kurds and MeK. The CIA was revealed to have armed MeK (despite designation) and my guess is that they do with the Kurds too. The CIA also talks to the Balochi groups as well although I don't know how organized or armed they are.
Needless to say, "regime change" would in reality mean civil war like Syria or collapse like Libya.
The US has spent a lot of time and money on MEK but I don't think they are very effective. Or will be very effective. My understanding is the leader of MEK has n't been seen in years(is probably dead), and MEK members are only allowed to marry other MEK members, so the number of MEK members is way down from their 80s highpoint, and it's not getting better.
Yeah, my understanding as well. Seems more like a cult that the US got too excited about.
Or Irak.
The list of exemple is long enough, no need to add Iran.
We already had ISIS thanks to the mess in Irak and Libya.
Well, Iraq is not that simple because Iran has also invested a lot in Iraq with various Shia forces. Right now Iraq is trying not to get involved. That's been their news all day. Maybe that is a sign that the Iranian investment is paying off, or just that the Iraqis are tired as fuck especially after the first Iran-Iraq invasion and then them being fucked by the US.
You spelled Iraq as "Irak". Is there a meaning to this? I couldn't find a reference but wonder if that's somehow a meaningful spelling.
It's the spelling used by French, German and couple of neighbouring languages.
Romanizations are fashion trends rather than any kind of science or real standardized system. Other than those places with Roman-era Latin spellings like Syria, others have dozens of variants.
Yes it's how we write in french.
Yeah, he's probably French.
A plan? Actually there is. This is all part of the backdrop to end US elections. We can’t have elections in the middle of a major war. And if we do have them we must greatly constrain how they are held while we are at war.
We had elections during WW2, the largest war of all time; we had elections during the civil war when confederate troops were 30 miles from DC. An air campaign in the Middle East is just another tuesday by comparison. This theory falls flat on its face - it is not a reasonable pretext for suspending elections, and this administration does not bother with creating pretexts for its power grabs.
Ah, but whether it is a "reasonable" pretext/excuse for suspending elections is up to the media and how they want to spin it for the masses, to shape their opinion, isn't it? And how practical, that more news outlets are now owned by MAGA people. Furthermore, I will not put it past Trump to use any flimsy excuse to suspend elections, if he thinks he will lose.
The president has no legal powers over elections, per the constitution. Only states can hold elections.
Of course Trump and the GOP can try all sorts of voter suppression, which is what they're doing now.
What if Trump were to say elections are illegal due to the war. We need to delay them. And Republicans in congress did nothing. And the Supreme Court decided not to hear any cases related to it. What then? We’re learning the US government has basically no teeth to stop something like this.
It's a scary thought, albeit not a realistic one at the moment, thankfully. The Supreme Court has shown ample willingness to strike down blatant (and subtle, for that matter) executive overreach. Exhibit A is Trump's tariffs, which were justified by the administration to be legal through the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which allows the president to “regulate…importation” during a declared state of emergency. The Supreme Court found that the wording in the act allowing the president to “regulate…importation” was not sufficient to grant the president the power to impose tariffs. The wording in the IEEPA is vague enough that you could go either way, but the conservative majority tends to follow the Major Questions Doctrine, which essentially says that in vague matters like this, assume that the power belongs to Congress and not the president.
Meanwhile, delaying or canceling elections through executive order would be blatantly illegal, particularly when no conflict is taking place on U.S. soil. The case likely wouldn't even make it to the Supreme Court, but if it did, I have no doubt elections would be promptly reinstated.
I'm not saying the Supreme Court has a perfect record, of course. Not even two years ago, they essentially ruled that the president is above the law. But at least in matters regarding the balance of powers between branches, the Supreme Court is wary of the power of the executive branch, and that should certainly include the president's ability (or lack thereof) to interfere in elections.
Can you name something which can't be spun by the media or that you could not believe Trump would try to use as an excuse? If something is always true, it is evidence of nothing in particular.
Claiming this strike on Iran is an attempt to suspend US elections is exactly as ridiculous as claiming the last round of strikes on Iran, or the Maduro raid, or any of Trump's other previous military boondoggles were attempts to suspend US elections.
I've been trying to avoid the news for a little over a year now. I needed a detox. ... Is this true? That is, are there legitimate proposals to cancel or constrain the November elections in any significant way? Or, is this all speculation?
There's a memo out about nationalizing elections and there's the SAVE America act to require much stricter voting requirements. Both of these unconstitutional obviously because federal government doesn't run elections.
Isn't this essentially what MAGA argued during the fighting over the 2020 election - that the states should be able to run their elections however-the-fvck they want, and the feds have no right tell the states how to run their elections?
What, is the US Ukraine? Is it under attack?
When zelenskyy mentioned elections were suspended by the war to trump, in the Whitehouse while in a room full of media, trump replied something like "now that's a good idea"
That's an absurd stretch with no basis in fact or history.
Unfortunately, you can't dismiss it based on that. Most of what this administration does is an absurd stretch with no basis in fact or history.
The president said they should cancel the elections.
You must be ignorant - the entire republican leadership is telegraphing the cancel elections
> We can’t have elections in the middle of a major war.
Yes we can? Is there any provision in the US Constitution that allows delay of election because of war? We have had elections during most of our recent wars (Iraq, Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan).
Trump could definitely try. Or pull an emergency card out of his ass. But it doesn't mean there is any provision for cancelling elections because of this 'war' with Iran (which they aren't even calling a war, but a "special combat operation" to get around congress having the war powers)
That statement was not on my voice, but the coming voice from this administration. IMO there is never a reason to withhold elections.
So, I heard Epstein started a war in the middle east...
> is there a plan...
probably not, outside of making more revenue for raytheon
Campaign to move the headlines from Epstein to something else, perhaps?
>No approval from Congress.
To be fair that's been the case for decades. Trump's hardly new in this.
Needs to notify Congress within 48 hours (and he did beforehand), and has 60 days before needing Congress to declare war.
Looking at the list of countries we have declared war on
https://www.senate.gov/about/powers-procedures/declarations-...
I don't think it matters.
For better or for worse, the War Powers Resolution acts as standing approval.
...In a couple of weeks.
> No approval from Congress.
I don't support it but there's blanket approval from Congress from the AUMF.
This authorizes an attack on Iran?
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This joint resolution may be cited as the ‘‘Authorization for Use of Military Force’’. SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES. (a) IN GENERAL.—That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
And when was that approval passed?
I was discussing this with a friend today. It just feels like there's no point to these actions.
Not in the sense of "I don't ideologically agree with our decision to do this," but in the sense of, "I do not see how this accomplishes any ideological or practical goal."
What are they trying for? Regime change in Iran? No more Iranian nuclear program? There barely was one before. Keeping Israel safe? It's been an open secret for years that Iran is not a real threat to Israel, because any action it took against Israel would be existential for Iran and its leadership.
A US president who vocally and repeatedly promised he would not start new conflicts keeps starting them, and there's not even a reason. It's infuriating. I have my partisan opinions, but that should not be a partisan statement! It's just disturbing!
The point is preventing another North Korea style nuclear blackmail state.
Iran has negotiated like no one will ever attack it, and that was a correct assumption for decades
However, due to Iran's overly aggressive use of questionably rational proxies, Hamas has dragged it into a regional conflict where it lost most of its proxies power.
After the last war, it also is no longer a threshold state, so the only leverage they had left was ballistic missiles, which were also handled quite reasonably by Israeli air defense.
In this situation it is a fair request by the US to sign a nuclear deal that heavily restricts Iran's ability to enrich as well as ICBM, trigger with existing uranium stockpiles removed.
As Iran due to ideological reasons refused, and IMO had miscalculated this will be a win-win, as losing will quell the protests, the only thing really left is the metaphorical stick
Does Iran not have the same rights of self-defense and sovereignty as the US and Israel?
> The point is preventing another North Korea style nuclear blackmail state
The US and Israel are currently nuclear blackmail states. The rational move for Iran to prevent itself from being bullied is to have nukes like North Korea.
> In this situation it is a fair request by the US
Fair if you're the US, sure.
190 countries signed the non proliferation treaty for a very good reason, so no they don’t have the right to it in any sense of the word on the international stage.
Especially not when they’re mass murdering protestors and funding islamic extremism left and right
Okay so neither then does Israel yet here we are a country with illicit nuclear weapons that murdered scores of thousands of civilians has what standing to do what now?
Opposition to Iran’s regime does not imply support for Israel’s
Israel never signed the NPT, like India and Pakistan.
Oh wow cool even more unhinged than I realized
As opposed to America who are only non-mass murdering protestors.
They actually do. And I say it as a European and I think the Iranian regime is as bad as it gets, and won't shed a tear if they all get executed.
What recent months show us, is that it's a rough world - there are no friends. I'm rooting for European countries to accelerate their nuclear weapons programs. In an ideal world, of course I would be against. But the world is far from ideal. The current alternative is being dictated the rules by Donald Trump or Vladimir Putin. Thanks, but no.
The US is also murdering protesters and funding Christian extremists. So what now?
[flagged]
Next up, Hannibal Lector marches for change of regime in I-ran and better life for I-ranians. When asked if that's not a bit odd, he says, get back at me when my crimes are on a similar scale.
There was no “go kill protestors” order given here.
So around November.
> The rational move for Iran to prevent itself from being bullied is to have nukes like North Korea
North Korea invaded South Korea, stole a US Navy ship (the Pueblo, which they still proudly exhibit), dug large infiltration tunnels under the DMZ, kidnapped hundreds, or even thousands people from SK (and Japan, to a lesser extent), and have assassinated, or attempted to assassinate, multiple SK heads of state, and perpetrated acts of terror like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Air_Flight_858
What did the US or SK do to them before their nuclear program that constituted "bullying?"
> The US and Israel are currently nuclear blackmail states.
Neither of these states have at any point said anything on the modern era that can be implied to be a threat to nuke anybody.
Part of that is because it would be a bad strategy for them, but nonetheless "nuclear blackmail state" and "nuclear state" is not the same thing.
Why exactly do you suppose the US gets away with carrying out military attack or threatening to carry out military attack against a new country every couple of months?
Because of their conventional military.
Trump had done it several times.
[flagged]
Dictatorships have no "rights". People have rights.
Iran signed the NPT.
The NPT did not exist at the time of the US developing nuclear weapons, and it explicitly allows US (and other pre-existing nuclear powers') weapons.
Israel, like India and Pakistan, simply never signed it, forgoing the international nuclear technology market as a consequence but also avoiding a treaty obligation not to develop them.
That was before the revolution. The revolutionary government still honored the deal, but that's been obviously a losing move for a while. The whole Middle East recognizes that, just look at how many countries Pakistan has sharing agreements with recently.
Treaty obligations do not disappear with a revolution
They might not disappear, but it's more like loan sharks insisting you must inherit your father's gambling debts than anything. The US and Israel have absolutely no place criticizing others for breaking agreements in any case.
Such as the Paris Agreement, right?
The Paris Agreement included an explicit clause allowing parties to exit it after giving notice of withdrawal. It did not go out of effect immediately on Trump's election, but the administration went through the legal procedure.
The NPT has much stricter terms for withdrawal, which in any case Iran has not followed.
(The better and much more relevant analogy would be the JCPOA. That's what happens when the US does foreign policy by "executive agreement" instead of treaty. Foreign countries should not value them more than the paper they're written on.)
No such right exists, except in moral terms, but if you are going to invoke morals, the Iranian regime does not hold up well. So no, they do not.
Perhaps you will argue that the US or Israel or Pakistan or North Korea have conducted themselves in a way where they do not have that moral right either, but that is a different debate, and either way it is moot because they do have them.
> Does Iran not have the same rights of self-defense and sovereignty as the US and Israel?
Iran signed Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
And US signed Budapest Memorandum. Both are equally hollow.
The former government, a US puppet regime. Why should they honor a deal that doesn't benefit them when the US and Israel refuse to play by the rules?
[flagged]
Are you saying that the USA have 'human peace' as a goal? Where have you been the last 50 years? Mars?
And it's precisely the US who's not acting rationally nor have any goals for human peace.
So you rather have a world controlled by the Chinese axis?
"Chinese axis".
In many ways I think it would be better than the world controlled by the US axis.
Then again, I am not from the US nor Israel nor any muslim country. I just hope the countries I care about stay out of this Iran deal.
This would allow me to quietly hope that Iran somehow wins this in the long run. I have this tendency of supporting the aggressed party in uneven conflicts.
If you are living in a western country, you are talking out of extreme privilege and zero sense.
Automatically presuming that the weak side is the morally right is such a skewed an naive world view.
I presume no such thing. I never implied morality to the Iranian government.
However, in this case, the US-Israel axis is undoubtedly the agressor, and morally indefensible.
In the Russian invasion against Ukraine, I can hope Ukraine succeedes without ascribing morality to the Ukrainian government.
Even when Iran is funding and arming Hamas, hezbollah, houthis, irqai militias, calls for the destruction of Israel, a trying to build such capability? When is a preemptive strike legitimate?
Are we going to pretend Israel has no genocidaire ambitions against basically every neighboring country? What do you think ideas of "greater Israel" are?
Hell, the US ambassator to Israel basically admitted to it in an recent interview with Tucker Carlson.
Also, lest we forget, the US has a huge laundry list of supporting insurgencies and actively sponsoring coups everywhere. Especially in Latin America.
To be frank, Iran sounds pretty tame in comparison. If your argument is that they are evil, I would counter they are definitely the lesser of two evils.
So.... Go Persia?
“Greater Israel” is such a stupid take, conspiracy from Islamist propaganda. I can count with both my hands the number of people that believe that in Israel.
Let’s perform a thought experiment. Israel is 8 million Jews, half of the country is an unpopulated desert, our largest border is with Jordan which is barely defensible. And you think that we want to conquer Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and parts of Iraq? With what army? How can we support such a conquest? How will we defend that border? Sharing a border with Iran? How will 8 million Jews handle the 40 million Muslims that will allegedly be conquered? This makes so little sense that believing it just exposes your radical bias.
> I can count with both my hands the number of people that believe that in Israel.
I hope you are counting the current prime minister with your fingers.
> And you think that we want to conquer Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and parts of Iraq?
I think Israel is an extremely aggressive country, yes.
> How will 8 million Jews handle the 40 million Muslims that will allegedly be conquered?
Conquered? No, the 40 million would be murdered if Israel has its way.
Speaking of numbers is very disingenuous when it an bring along the US to this fight.
I said that Israel has genocidaire ambitions towards its neighbors, I never said anything about conquest.
Population numbers would matter only if Israel had ambitions to rule over the people. When your intention is murder the numbers are only a challenge to your goal.
So you’re saying that Israel is planning to kill 40 million people with the help of USA? jeez man, you gotta lay of the kool aid. That’s some deep conspiracy shit.
Planning? I can't say.
Desire? Absolutely. That's what they have been doing with the Palestinians after all.
As I said before, I have no dog in this race. I personally prefer the countries I care about to not get involved in this conflict, and hope the US-Israel axis lose somehow.
I stole that silly axis jargon from you. It is very fitting there now.
Why this fake dilemma? This US administration is acting terribly irrationally and dangerously, independently of what China does.
> You think that all countries should get the same rights?
Do you think all people in your country should get the same rights?
They do, unless they commit crimes, then these rights get severely limited (like every country in the world)
So then all countries should have same rights.
Are you saying that countries and people are the same?
And I’m not entirely sure what point are you trying to make, that terror countries like the houthis should have nuclear weapons, or that people in a country should not have equal rights.
Yes countries are people and to secure their existence nuclear option should be perused. This was much better written here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47191788
It’s amazing to me that you truly think that terrorists having nuclear weapons will make the world safer.
Terrorists already have nuclear weapons. Of course no country having nukes is ideal, but in absence of that possibility everyone having them is better, unless your reasoning is "I hope my side has them and the other side doesn't."
Of course that that’s my reasoning. You don’t start war out of a presumption of power equality. Wars are won by a power imbalance.
When someone is attacking me obviously I want the bigger and stronger weapon.
>Does Iran not have the same rights of self-defense and sovereignty as the US and Israel?
No. If they wanted self-defense and sovereignty they should have become stronger not weaker after the revolution.
>Iran has negotiated like no one will ever attack it, and that was a correct assumption for decades
Iran had a signed agreement, trump cancelled it. Israel literally killed Irans negotiators just a few months ago. What is this nuclear level ignorance.
This comment is so wrong. Trump's strikes won't "prevent" anything, it's domestic posturing to look tough. You cannot bomb your way into regime change.
> After the last war, it also is no longer a threshold state
That's also wrong. Trump claimed Iran's enrichment capabilities were totally destroyed, but they weren't.
> In this situation it is a fair request by the US to sign a nuclear deal
America already had a good deal. Trump got rid of it.
Iran's nuclear program cannot produce usable nuclear weapons just with enriched uranium, so there's no risk at all for them to blackmail anybody.
The biggest blackmail rogue state right now is the US.
> The point is preventing another North Korea style nuclear blackmail state.
You can bomb the leadership all day long.
Without boots on the ground the regime will probably continue.
I don't see how this stops Iran from building nukes. Sure they may have a temporary set back.
But do you think this will change their minds?
Can they even negotiate a resolution with the US. Given that the current administration won't honor its own agreements.
Did Trump issue an ultimatum here? And demand something?
> The point is preventing another North Korea style nuclear blackmail state.
North Korea aspires be to be a Israel-style nuclear blackmail state.
> In this situation it is a fair request by the US to sign a nuclear deal that heavily restricts Iran's ability to enrich, and as Iran due to ideological reasons refused, and IMO miscalculated this will be a win-win, as losing will quell the protests, the only thing really left is the metaphorical stick
Didn't we have one of those a few years ago? I wonder what happened to it /s
Seriously, though: how can Iran both be so powerful we must avoid it becoming a blackmail state, and so weak and feckless it's not a threat to anyone?
And didn't we already attack them to stop them from getting nuclear capabilities?
The contradiction is that they’re weak at this minute - militarily and economically and politically. But they won’t be this weak in the future.
- Military - their regional proxies destroyed, missile and drone stocks low, provably weak air defences.
- Economically - the currency is worthless, extreme inflation for seven years and hyper inflation for a few months, the economy is currently producing nothing due to unrest, they have a massive water shortage of their own making. They have no goods worth exporting. Their oil is sanctioned, meaning only China will buy from them and at a steep discount. And oil is extremely cheap at this minute.
- Politically - they have no friends willing to bail them out. Russia has no money to spare. China doesn’t care about anyone outside of China. North Korea is even poorer. All sections within Iranian society detest the mullahs running the government. They’re hanging on by killing tens of thousands of protestors.
Trump bets that Iran’s leaders are at their weakest since their war with Saddam ended in 1988. Meaning now is the best time to negotiate a deal where they hand over their fissile material and uranium enrichment equipment. In return they could get a heavy water reactor(s) that produces energy but no fissile material.
If he lets this opportunity slip Iran could fix all of their many problems in a year or three. Manufacture more missiles and drones. Build up their proxies once more. Maybe the price of oil recovers. Russia’s war ends and they aid Iran best they can. The economy recovers and the Iranian people stop trying to overthrow the government. Maybe a conflict starts elsewhere that draws America’s full attention.
Will Trump get that deal? Probably not. That fissile material is the only leverage the mullahs have. If they give it up they’ll be toppled like the other dictators who gave up their weapons programs - Gaddafi and Saddam.
But if you don’t ask you don’t get, right?
Very good analysis. I think most of the world doesn’t quite understand how bad the currency crisis is right now in Iran
It was one of the primary triggers for the protests. People are very upset about the economy and willing to protest and die for it.
> Didn't we have one of those a few years ago? I wonder what happened to it /s
Yes, although it had merit it was far worse than what can be signed now, especially the sunset clause was problematic
> Seriously, though: how can Iran both be so powerful we must avoid it becoming a blackmail state, and so weak and feckless it's not a threat to anyone?
that's the nature of nuclear weapons, your conventional force can be abysmal (pretty much NK situation vs US) and yet you can create epic destruction
> And didn't we already attack them to stop them from getting nuclear capabilities?
Yes, the thing here is the long term goal of signing a deal, whose main goal is removing the existing highly enriched uranium from Iran and restricting their ability to redevelop nuclear capabilities. Essentially this is the part where "Diplomacy is the continuation of war by other means" (to highly paraphrase), because the alternative to a deal is maintenance attacks such as these every two years
[flagged]
[flagged]
I dont see how it is fair from USA to demand others dont have nukes. Ukraine made mistake of trusting ISA and giving them away and now USA basically support Russia in their invasion.
Iran is a bad guy state ... but the "fair" atgunent hwre dont apply.
Why do you call the concept a "North Korea style nuclear blackmail state" and not an "Israel style nuclear blackmail state"?
Has Israel even officially confirmed they have nukes? And who have they blackmailed with the nukes?
> Has Israel even officially confirmed they have nukes?
No. There's a number of reasons for this. #1 is Israel's policy of "strategic ambiguity" and #2 is that it might be illegal to even mention it in Israel. Israel prosecuted a whistleblower nuclear scientist for leaking state secrets, for example.
> And who have they blackmailed with the nukes?
The US, for one:
"Similarly, in the 1973 Yom Kippur War, IDF was again outnumbered by the invading Arab armies. Then Israeli PM Golda Meir authorized a nuclear alert and ordered that nuclear warheads be readied for launch from missiles and aircraft. The Israeli ambassador to the US, Simcha Dinitz, met with Henry Kissinger to inform President Nixon of “Very serious conclusions” if the US did not airlift arms supplies to the IDF. Nixon complied with this demand due to the threat of the use of nuclear forces. This was the first successful use of the Samson option as a threat and tantamount to nuclear blackmail."
from: https://thesvi.org/deconstructing-israels-samson-option/
I also recommend: https://www.currentaffairs.org/news/wait-why-is-israel-allow...
The Samson Option enables Israel to blackmail the entire Middle East, and do so silently. Turkey or Egypt can't afford for Hezbollah to overrun Israel, because Ankara and Cairo might get nuked, even if they had nothing to do with contributing to Israel's existential crisis. It basically forces the whole neighborhood to keep each other in check out of sheer self-preservation. Credit given where credit due, it's a smart approach on Israel's part.
I stand corrected. It didn’t occur to me they could blackmail someone other than their neighbours.
You asked two perfectly valid questions; rather, those who ought to admit correction, in threads like these, tend to behave confidently opinionated while engaging deeply with a commenter who disagrees with their take on things.
[dead]
On Israel, is it possible that they feel their influence on US foreign policy is waning and they want to push over Iran before they can’t do it anymore, even if the propaganda in America hasn’t been sufficiently set up yet to provide cover? Where pushing Iran over is useful because having weak neighbors is good for their expansion?
Possibly wishful thinking, but that’s the only way I can make it make sense in my head.
Netanyahu has been pushing for the US to attack Iran since the 80s, it's been a lifelong dream of his. This has nothing to do with self defense.
It’s been a lifelong dream of millions of Iranian expats
does anyone seriously believe there can be a good outcome of this for iranian people?
I can't make up a story that will be good for iranian people in the end. Is there even an example in last 100 years that started out like this thing is starting out and ended well for the people?
I didn’t really know much about Iran as a typical American until I married an Iranian woman. And then I met her family and her friends and I came to love Persian people. They’re some of the kindest people I’ve ever met.
What hasn’t come up enough in this thread is the currency crisis that triggered the protests. The economy is in shambles and they’re still simmering anger about the Mahsa Amini killing.
There Iranian people are tired of being under the thumb of the mullahs. They don’t want to live under an Islamic theocracy.
Millions of Iranians all over the world and inside Iran are cheering us on. They’re done. Yes, they’re scared and they don’t know what will come next, but they know what they have now is intolerable.
it’s possible this could all go badly, but what the Iranian people have now is worse. We have to try. Every Iranian person I’ve met is hopeful something better will come.
A similar scenario to this played out in Yugoslavia and overthrowing of the previously proven, and definitely not 90% manufactured "evil, genocidal and dictatorship regime" of Slobodan Milosevic. A lot of people cheered, including many expats, and "democracy" and "freedom" were finally gifted to the people. To be clear, I, in no way, justify any atrocities committed in war by any party - but "evil" and "savage" was used to describe a lot of legitimate reactions of the country, in a very similar way to how Iran is now "savagely attacking" innocent countries around them.
What happened afterwards in reality was 20+ years of escalating corruption and sale and systemic destruction of any valuable assets - culminating in the government of Aleksandar Vucic, member of Milosevic's regime, who in the recent years pumped out absolutely incredible amounts of money out of the country and is a de-facto dictator.
If you ask people who remember living under Milosevic about how it was, they all say the same thing - bad in some ways, but certainly better than this, and that he was a "little kitten" compared to the current fully criminal organisation.
Not to mention that many of Iran's problems are caused by several decades of sanctions that are stifling its economy and reducing the quality of life in the country. Why is this being forgotten?
Ironically, Iranians right now are saying the same thing about the Shah. They’re saying that, while the Shah wasn’t perfect, things were better back then than they are now.
> If you ask people who remember living under Milosevic about how it was, they all say the same thing - bad in some ways, but certainly better than this
Umm, people of which ethnicity?
You don’t unseat the Fraudster in Chief while at war. So starting a war is a slightly less conspicuous trick than outright preventing relevant elections from taking place.
Iran is the main source of resistance in the region. Libya, Iraq, and Syria have been pacified. Egypt has been bought off. All the groups still fighting Israel (Hezbollah, Houthis, probably Hamas) have received significant Iranian support.
I believe the calculation is this is Israel’s last best window of opportunity to leverage the declining American empire with a compromised asset in the White House. The time to strike is now, since in 10 years US military power and US political will in support of Israel will likely be diminished.
Probably a continuation of the 'mowing the lawn' strategy (as used against the Palestinians). Every now and again use massive military force to set back Iran's capabilities, time and effort they spend rebuilding is time and effort not spent causing problems elsewhere.
Yes, when you ask the basic Clauzewitz question about "continuation of politics by other means": what are the war aims, and how is this action connected to them?
What are the strikes even against?
Do they seriously think that after Iran shot all the street revolutionaries, another group will come forward and collapse the government?
Are they treating Iran as Big Serbia? It's a very different situation!
Or is this just for the Posting?
Anyone raising their weapon against Israel in the last 20 years was armed, supplied, funded, trained and directed by Iran. There’s a special division called Quds in the IRGC responsible just for that. The list includes Hizbollah, Assad’s former regime in Syria, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Houthis, Hizbollah in Iraq and others.
Israel being an ethnic supremacist state for more than the last 20 years [0], on a determined mission to ethnically cleanse the indigenous population from their ancestral land [1], this comment unintentionally makes Iran sound like the good guys in this story. (I do not support any form of theocracy).
[0] https://www.btselem.org/topic/apartheid [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_the_Palestinians
[flagged]
>Like after creation of Israel
So we agree that the first move in this conflict was a 20th century European nationalist group setting up a new state by force in the middle of an inhabited nation? With the blessing of the colonial power in charge.
Doesn't defend what happened to Jewish people in Egypt and Lebanon, but certainly puts some context around it.
As for the depopulation of Jews from Yemen and Iraq, that was Israeli policy and they managed it by themselves.
> Doesn't defend what happened to Jewish people in Egypt and Lebanon, but certainly puts some context around it.
Which context? That zionism is right and it's great that Jews had a backup safe land to go?
> depopulation of Jews from Yemen and Iraq, that was Israeli policy and they managed it by themselves
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Iraq#Pe...
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947_anti-Jewish_riots_in_Aden
Arabs started to bully Jews, and thus prove that the idea of a safe homeland for Jews is the right idea. For generations. What a smartasses.
You seem confused and didn't seem to read the message you are replying to. I think the main point should be repeated to avoid the reading issues problem:
>So we agree that the first move in this conflict was a 20th century European nationalist group setting up a new state by force in the middle of an inhabited nation? With the blessing of the colonial power in charge.
I didn't want to spread the answer too much, bit if you're asking.
> of an inhabited nation
https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/nation
> a tribe of Native Americans or a group of Native American tribes that share the same history, traditions, or language
They're not native americans.
> a large area of land that is controlled by its _own_ government
Mandatory Palestine was controlled by British.
So it was not an inhabited nation, I guess.
It had someone living there, those someone's weren't asked and their land handed over to someone else. If we see it from the perspective of it having being a British colonial project, then it's even worse having gone from one colonial master to another without asking the natives.
> and their land handed over to someone else
Well, they were offered a partition plan, and instead of further negotiations chose to start a war.
Multiple wars, in fact, and managed to fail all of them.
[flagged]
Despite this varied ethnic makeup Israel's basic law says that
> The right to exercise national self-determination in the State of Israel is unique to the Jewish people.
Which is why there are plenty of racist laws like this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaization_of_the_Galilee
Yes, Israel was founded specifically to be a safe haven for Jews after 2/3 of them were murdered in Europe, and it passed this (somewhat ridiculous) law in 2018 because it knows full well that once Jews cease to be the majority in Israel, they'll cease to be, period.
You can view it as racist, you can hate it, you can want to see Israel destroyed in favor of yet another 100% Arab country, it really doesn't matter, because the fact is you're all hypocrites who only have the safety that you have because of genocides, brutal wars, land capture, regime toppling and forced conversions. That's the only thing we learned from the rest of the enlightened world. Kill, destroy, erase, force convert, and somehow be deemed a beacon of freedom and democracy.
In real life, Israel is more ethnically and religiously varied than all its surrounding countries, and non-Jews in Israel have rights that even I, as a Jew, don't have (such as freedom of religion). Jews are a minority in the Galilee, and there's no law for the Judaization of the Galilee.
Cultural Arabs and Ethnic Arabs are not the same thing.
Ethnic Arabs are from the Arabian peninsula. Islam's expansion started a slow process of Arabization whereby indigenous people in lands that ended up under the control of the Muslim caliphate/empire started speaking Arabic (mixed with their local dialects) and adopting aspects of Arabic culture, not dissimilar to the previous process of Romanization and Hellenization from the Greeks and Romans.
TL;DR People who today call themselves Palestinians are biological descendants of ancient Jews and other peoples local to the region of Palestine who eventually converted to Christianity and/or Islam, some remained Jewish, started speaking Arabic, and never left the land.
That's what genetic studies and history converge on, and what the early zionist leaders including Ben-Gurion also happened to believe in (Ben-Gurion wrote a thesis on this subject), until it became inconvenient for Zionism to continue to do so.
Lebanon: 95% Arab
Syria: 90% Arab
Jordan: 95% Arab
Soudi-Arabia: 90% Arab
Egypt: 99.7% Egyptian
I love how you turned the elimination of hundreds of religions and ethnic groups into some beautiful cultural influence.
But go ahead, tell me how Israel is an ethnic supremacist state and how the Palestinians are the REAL Jews.
Don't listen to me, listen to the OG Zionists:
>Ben-Gurion, along with Yitzhak Ben-Zvi (the second President of Israel), argued in a 1918 booklet (written in Yiddish) that the Arab peasants of Palestine were not descendants of the Arab conquests, but rather the "remnant of the ancient Hebrew agriculturalists".
If you'd rather modern science, then there are genetic studies out of Israeli universities leading weight to this hypothesis (they tend to not get much attention among modern zionists as you can imagine). It's also the general consensus among historians of the region, inside and outside Israel. It's not really a contested position amongst academic historians.
>I love how you turned the elimination of hundreds of religions and ethnic groups into some beautiful cultural influence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabization
It was not always a clean process, varied a lot by century and location, but on the whole did not involve ethnic cleansing or massacres of ethnicities. The percentages of Arabs you quote above are, again, people who started calling themselves Arabs after cultural shifts, and not, as you seem to believe, a result of mass migration of ethnic Arabs from the Arabian peninsula to replace the local populations.
I don't think we have much else to exchange in good faith on this topic, so I'll leave you here.
[flagged]
[dead]
The point is that Israel can't tolerate any competition in the area.
Wesley Clark: "We're going to take out 7 countries in 5 years":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWxKn-1S8ts
> What are they trying for? Regime change in Iran?
Seems like it. I can't imagine what else they might try for.
I suppose USA might think some shock and awe will result in iran making concessions at the bargaining table, but that seems unrealistic to me.
> No more Iranian nuclear program? There barely was one before.
That seems very debatable.
> Keeping Israel safe? It's been an open secret for years that Iran is not a real threat to Israel, because any action it took against Israel would be existential for Iran and its leadership.
Well they did take action against israel (you could say they were indirectly responsible for oct 7). Now they are facing said existential threat.
---
Ultimately though. Iran has been a major threat to both israeli and US interests, largely by funding proxy groups that take violent action against those interests. That's your motive for a war.
Iran is currently weak, facing multiple internal and eexternal crisises.
A war is happening because there is a limited window where iran is weak but the window potentially won't remain. That's the reason behind a lot of wars in history.
Well, they're probably killing thousands of their people there. This country was once aligned with us. We may yet have an ally there.
If we attacked every country in the world killing thousands of its own people we'd be at war with half the world right now.
Including the US.
It would be highly impractical to go to war with all of them at once, but USA can still fix one country at time. Venezuella, Iran, hopefully Cuba next.
Hey, we can’t save them all. But maybe we can save some of them.
Sure, throw several thousand bombs on them. That surely will help. They send kisses currently and are very happy they and their children are dying.
The US government doesn't give a single damn about the Iranian people.
They were only aligned with us after we overthrew their democratic secular government in 1953, and installed an unpopular authoritarian monarchy as sole leader. The reason we overthrew their government is because they felt we were ripping them off in oil deals and wanted the right to audit and cancel those deals (and renationalize their oil fields) if we weren't playing fair. Then in 1979 that puppet government was overthrown in a "real" revolution, which gave birth to the Islamic Republic of Iran which, for some reason, always had a chip on its shoulder against the West.
The protests in Iran today are almost certainly being extensively backed by the CIA and other US organizations. Do not mistake a minority as necessarily representing much more than themselves. Of course they might (I certainly don't have any particular insight in the "real" Iran), but you could certainly see something similar happening in the US with extreme groups, left or right wing, becoming visibly active if they were able to find a strong backing/organizing power that made them believe that they could genuinely overthrow the government. The point being that the actions and claims of those groups would not necessarily represent the US at large.
Yeah, regime change and no nukes.
Their endgame is genocide. They will be happy to only enslave the Iranian people too. Seriously, USA and its colony in Palestine are colonialist supremacists and they just want to extract all the resources and don't mind killing all the people of that land.
It's regime change this time. Trump published a message calling for all Iranian military forces to surrender and the Iranian people to take over the government.
They are boxing in China. Taking away China’s oil. First Venezuela. Now Iran.
Decoupling from China while taking out China’s allies is the overarching foreign policy.
I'm not sure how much that will pay off - it also gives China legitimacy in starting to much more overtly pursue their own interests through force. I definitely wouldn't be surprised if we saw something happening very quickly.
It accomplishes the goal of diverting attention away from the recent revelations of a pedophile ring among the elites having operated from a private island for decades, with current US president and serial rapist Trump being best friends with the ring leader.
It's bound to be incredibly successful at accomplishing that goal.
Similarly, wars against Iraq and Afghanistan were very successful in diverting attention away from 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers being from Saudi Arabia, and later on from the funding provided to one or more of the hijackers by Saudi officials. With a certain Ms. Maxwell being asked to join the investigatory committee on the event in question.
Yes, but there is also the other elephant in the room. Don’t underestimate Trump, he may not have read about Michael Parenti’s explanation of The Assassination of Julius Caesar: where he argues that Caesar was killed not as a tyrant threatening republican liberty, but as a popular reformer who challenged the Roman oligarchy's wealth and power and thirst for wars. Maybe Parenti doesn't explicitly equate JFK's killing to Caesar’s, the similarity lies in both being elite-driven assassinations to preserve power: Caesar by Roman senators against reforms, akin to theories of JFK's killing over anti-war shifts and perceived threats to entrenched interests. Critics note Parenti's JFK work critiques official narratives as state cover-ups, mirroring his Caesar "people's history" inversion of "gentlemen historians."
It gets his base fired up and excited.
Some people here might not be American or were too young to remember the lead up to the Iraq War, but it was transparently bullshit. Many people knew this. But if you dared say that, supporters would actively ruin your life. The Dixie Chicks were one of the most popular music acts in the US at the time, a country band that broke out of country and was getting huge appeal across the US. They dared to say they opposed the war. Their careers never returned.
Now with social media that isn't completely locked down, some voice of opposition can slip through and assure people that, yes, this is crazy. No, we don't need to blow the shit out of towns across the world. But these social media sites are all owned by government-aligned mega billionaires. They're rolling out AI that can comment and act very, very human and endorse everything the government does. They can auto-police opinions and spit out thousands of arguments and messages of harassment against them in seconds. Soon they'll be autoblocking any sense of disagreement.
It's at that point they can say that this is done to defend America. This is done to defend freedom. This desert country that's too screwed up to even manage its own internal affairs is somehow so dangerous that it's going to destroy the whole world with nukes it doesn't even have so we must destroy them all now. Dear leader always has your interests at heart. And you'll have no info to point to saying otherwise. Everyone who dares question it will be mocked, ridiculed, fired. Even if this administration fails, the tools are being built and laid out for the next, and I really don't know how humanity will overcome it. And I hate that I can't have optimism in this situation.
This discussion is one where it's worth looking at commenters' histories. Many have several pages where the bulk of their posts are defending Israel, saying war with Iran is necessary, and various related things. It's kind of spooky
While true for the Iraq war I don't think that holds as true anymore. Even a lot of MAGA recognise that getting into wars in the Middle East does nothing but cost the taxpayer billions/trillions of dollars for nothing to show.
That's because there's a glimpse of reason that still pokes through with influencers sometimes saying "you know, I think (thing) might not be good so I hope Trump doesn't do it." Then when trump does (thing), they always backpedal and say it's great. Pre-election inflation was a problem. Now prices are great. Epstein was a problem. Now they say nobody cares. War with Iran was bad. In 2 days influencers will all have a prepared message supporting it and in 3 days half the country will absolutely support it.
[dead]
[dead]
[flagged]
Islamophobia is unacceptable and should not be allowed in any community.
[flagged]
Yes. Just because you like the saying doesn’t mean it isn’t.
Then the word doesn’t mean anything.
If something causes harm, I’m allowed to dislike it.
“Phobia” is an irrational fear. For the Iranian people, it’s perfectly rational.
It's a nakedly imperial gambit, the Western ruling classes are attempting to deny Middle Eastern oil to Russia and China. Iran is their only capable opposition in the region, every other Gulf country is a bought-and-paid-for satrapy which just cosigned a genocide on its doorstep.
Oil to Russia? Please review that
Coals to Newcastle.
What if I told you the entire country of Russia is not actually oil fields, and Iran does export oil to them?
I would first assume it’s marginal amount of oil.
But I am willing to change my mind about it if I would see a source on that.
My low effort search suggests no significant oil export to russia https://oec.world/en/profile/bilateral-country/irn/partner/r... (2022 data, maybe something changed)
> No more Iranian nuclear program? There barely was one before.
How do you know?
The US department of war said last month that it was "obliterated"
>No other military in the world could have executed an operation of such scale, complexity, and consequence as Operation MIDNIGHT HAMMER. Yet the Joint Force did so flawlessly and obliterated Iran’s nuclear program.
https://media.defense.gov/2026/Jan/23/2003864773/-1/-1/0/202...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_strikes_on_Irani...
Good 1 hour presentation on youtube
https://youtu.be/SxqipJgtTdk?si=YfWRzjcflhWHR276
(Note: Iran did move some stuff away before the attack)
Ever since the ICE stuff I've been desperate to find a way to not pay my taxes - even if it means donating 2, 3x, hell 4x my tax bill to somewhere else. Obviously it's basically impossible to do this (especially if your income is all self employment income) outside of just spending every penny you earn on something that could be viably considered a business expense. So I'm wondering if I should just straight up stop working until I can relinquish my USA citizenship.
Spend down my savings and assets till I have almost nothing to exit tax, exit, and then start working again.
I don't want to fund the bombing of strangers I have no quarrel with.
If you're willing to go through all this trouble, why not just become politically active? Don't underestimate what a motivated individual can do. All these public figures (or institutions) swaying the country back and forth are only people too.
Btw, an example of a person making a difference: https://www.youtube.com/garyseconomics
I would rather vote for a person from hackernews than any other politician right now tbh...
"both sides" still with this?
I was politically active in the USA, in the only way I believe can make any meaningful change: direct action, mutual aid.
The American political system is captured by two neoliberal (one now post liberal, fascist) parties, and you have to sell your soul to "accomplish" anything, only to watch it yet ratcheted away by your own party, or obliterated by the fascists.
That would be unsound? Travel to Europe _before_ giving your assets away so you can stick the landing and work on building useful stuff there instead.
I’ll be a willing receptacle for your donations. I am homeless living with schizoaffective disorder and could use the help!
You're a good person and I feel similarly. We live under the Fourth Reich.
I do not think ceasing work is the right move, but definitely get involved politically and don't equivocate when you condemn our elected "representatives".
It might also soothe your soul to be in the company of like-minded individuals. A Quaker prayer is a sure place to find many.
This is a laudable position, and I don't say this to discourage you or others from taking this action, but taxation does not effectively constrain US military spending, as long as the USD remains globally desirable and the US retains the ability to print more of them.
Many people might wonder why China doesn't step in to help Iran. From our perspective, we realized a long time ago that the Iranian government is too weak and fundamentally untrustworthy. They would sell out China's interests to curry favor with the United States, so China's cooperation with Iran is kept as free from political entanglements as possible. War is wrong, but at most China will sell some weapons—it won't get too involved."
Based on recent events, China seems to be an all-round an unreliable ally. China did nothing for Venezuela when Maduro was kidnapped by the US, did nothing for Pakistan when India conducted airstrikes on Pakistani military bases, and now is doing nothing for Iran. You guys seem more like ruthless businessmen who are in it to solely make money and nothing else, and in that regard you guys are very similar to the Americans.
kind of true.
> but at most China will sell some weapons—it won't get too involved.
In the Middle-east theatre, no telling what will happen in East Asia.
Iranians are celebrating, btw. This is what they have been dreaming of. This is their chance to finally take their country back, and I think they'll do it.
I can't think of a better use of US military power in the world than to take out this terrible regime and let the Iranians do the rest. This isn't Iraq or Venezuela. People saying that we can't bomb our way into regime change apparently didn't follow the protests and massacres very closely a couple months ago. Iranians were begging for help so that they could topple the regime.
The news of bombs falling on schools must be really exhilarating to people. Especially for the ones that have children! Finally they have a chance to throw away their government and replace it with a military junta
Good job parroting Iranian propaganda
> People saying that we can't bomb our way into regime change apparently didn't follow the protests and massacres very closely a couple months ago. Iranians were begging for help so that they could topple the regime.
Of course people didn’t follow. Did you see any major news outlet doing live coverage of the events like they did for October 7th? No.
Taking their country? Unlikely.
I sincerely hope I'm wrong, but if 89,95M of 90M people are just looking at from the sides for years, I'm still not seeing that this would motivate people to revolt. Same thing as with the young elephant growing up with the chains.
Did you just totally miss the millions of people protesting the other month or what?
Probably not the dead ones
They didn't celebrate the last time Israel & the U.S. attacked them & they aren't celebrating now.
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/2026/01/trump-kham...
Successful regime change requires a far more significant investment in soft power than America & Israel's current right-wing leadership would even conceive of.
After 5000 years of human organised war history we are here:
* the weapons can annihilate the world and extinguish civilization in a few hours
* a massive asymmetry between the enemies in any metric is evident
* the strikes and battles are surprisingly of small scale, targeted and not decisive
Why on earth isn't the diplomacy used to solve the status after an imminent warning to make Iran an extension of Indian ocean with weapons of mass destruction?
Previous conflicts between the involved parties were intense but also defined by constrain on both sides.
Israel did not mass bomb civilians, and Iranian agents did not commit sabotage against infrastructure on US soil.
I hope this pattern persists.
A hand full of determined Ukrainians managed to blow up North Stream, some people plunged part of Berlin into darkness for 2 weeks.
Power and data cables as well as pipelines are as vulnerable in the US, as they are here. Maybe even more so.
A regime that truly feared for its existence, might decide to escalate, since there is nothing to loose.
I think the latter, the US is explicitly attempting a regime change operation so Iran has no reason for restraint.
The US is aware of this, that's why they evacuated all their bases etc within range
> explicitly attempting a regime change operation
I missed that press release. Where is it?
> "When we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take. This will be probably your only chance for generations,"
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/us-and-israel-launch-a-ma...
...if we didn't kill you.
Thanks.
US is to out of touch with reality, they want to put a Zionist who is generally hated by Iranians in power. Will never happen.
> who is generally hated by Iranians in power.
So that’s why said Iranians chant Javid Shah?
Iranian here, the Shah has surprisingly many supporters, both inside and abroad.
Iran is a big complex country and is more diverse than people think.
When someone from the ME comments on a story about the ME, it is customary on HN for the community to downvote them into oblivion.
They are not downvoted into oblivion as far as I can see.
Why do you say it's customary?
When I left the reply, the comment was light gray.
I quipped that it is 'customary' based only on a few previous instances I noticed on HN. They drew my attention because with ME issues, I feel like most takes here (including my own) are based on received ideas, rather than first-hand experience.
Exactly, I have a hard time seeing how that will ever play out how they want.
The whole reason the 1979 revolution happened in the first place was because the Shah was a blatant US/Israeli puppet
You've missed the part where islamist butchered the leaders of the actual 1979 revolution. In reality it was:
unpopular shah -> 1979 revolution -> islamists take control, prison and kill the leftists of 1979 revolution.
That is true but that’s often how these things go, you pull together a coalition of factions to overthrow the existing elites and then afterwards it devolves into infighting
It worked with Machado, so why wouldn't it work with... oh wait. We're governed by a shadowy criminal network of idiots.
Israel has been mass bombing civilians right next door for years now.
Then explain how the Population of Palestine keeps growing.
> Israel did not mass bomb civilians
Within an hour Israel blew up an elementary school, killing 80 civilians.
A school located at 27.109828°N, 57.084744°E was hit and partially collapsed. That is the extent of the hard evidence.
Oh my God, is this 2001 again?
> All we know is that they did launch a missile that blew up a school. That's it. Just a little woopsies!
Ignore what schools are for and who are in them and what communities exist around them. Ignore that a school is clearly not a fucking military target. Ignore the workers digging through rubble and the reported deaths.
No, despite the past 25 years, the US and Israel's governments are not only trustworthy, but the only source of truth. There are no deaths in Ba Sing Se. There were nuclear missiles hidden in that school!
And, of course, I'm sure we'll hear next that any deaths were terrorists. And if any photos of lifeless kids come up, clearly they're some kind of pinatas or AI! And if their names and life stories come out and there are funerals - duh, state actors!
My country has completely lost its fucking mind. Which I guess makes sense enough after spending my entire adult life watching people basically shrug over little kids being gunned down at school.
Which, dang, that reminds me how Sandy Hook was also a conspiracy and I've had to suffer listening to the same exact "state actor" thing with that.
Fact check before writing walls of text. Information war is a real thing. Everything you wrote has no import on whether this particular piece of information is true.
Nothing went dark for weeks as a German you should know that.
Maybe not weeks, but there was extensive damage and parts of Berlin went dark https://edition.cnn.com/2026/01/07/europe/berlin-power-outag...
That has 0 correlation with Northstream.
Op didn’t say they were connected. They were referring to two distinct but impactful events.
The phrasing implies a connection.
I was in a major car accident, I cannot walk.
Oh the car accident was years ago, I was fine. I cannot walk because I'm seatbelted into a car driving down the road at the moment. Why would you have ever thought there was a connection?
Two examples of vulnerable infrastructure.
But afaik both are related to the same conflict.
The current hypothesis is that a left wing group triggered the outage in “protest” against Germanys involvement in the war.
EDIT: https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog-february-28-2026/
Needs a war to cancel the mid terms.
Gotta derail any peace talks!
Can't have Gaza have relief for a second!
What does this have to do with Gaza? One would think that if the IDF is busy in Iran, it will probably be less busy in Gaza.
Everything. A new conflict distracts from the ongoing genocide and allows its perpetrators to stay in power.
[flagged]
LOL. The US is on it too. So what you have to say for yourself now?
What peace talks? The ones where for over a year Iran refused to deescalate their nuclear war program and the now Europe range ballistic missiles?
You are lying, they have been trying to avoid this war in any possible way. But Israel wanted this war before they lost the support of the USA population (that it's happening fast) or they have a less accommodating USA president.
I agree about Israel fast losing support among the general public here but the idea of a less accommodating executive or legislative branch in the US for Israel is unthinkable. Not unless the system is changed from the ground up in dramatic fashion. The two most relevant branches of government in this country are completely beholden to Israel and anybody denying it is a zionist shill.
I believe this is related for Iran's decades old calls for "Death to America"/"Death to Israel".
> Death to....
Is the translation "Down with....".
No it's not.
I believe that’s related to Israel’s genocide of Palestinian children and America’s unending unconditional support of the same.
Anyway, sticking to the "Death to America" strategy and choosing to run a global proxy war and killing their own people, instead of choosing peace, have led to this moment.
Lets pray for the people of Iran we get rid of the regime this time, and eventually reach peace in the middle east.
Hopefully Khamenei is dead. Sticking with "Death to Israel" was not a good plan for him. I hope the regime goes down ASAP.
No, it's because of the country is run by fanatics.
Israel? Or the US? Because it would seem all three countries are run by fanatics that just believe in a slightly different version of the exact same story that they call a religion.
I take that back, Trump doesn't believe in anything but himself, but he's surrounded himself in a blanket of Christian nationalists.
Trump will be out of office in a couple of years, and hopefully Netanyahu as well. That's how democracy works. Israel has 20% muslim citizens, with muslim parties and parliament members, cities and vibrant Arab communities. They can work with liberal Jewish Israelis and kick out Netanyahu if they are smart. Much better then war and blood.
> Trump will be out of office in a couple of years, and hopefully Netanyahu as well.
Trump has said numerous times he’s going to run a third time and there’s no indication the Supreme Court has any ability to stop him.
We’ll see how democracy holds up when people intentionally are derelict in their duties.
Based on what? You guys said that about the tariffs right before the SC struck down the tariffs.
And yet, after “striking down” the tariffs they not only didn’t go away, they increased.
I really dislike Trump. He is not my type at all. I dislike religion and consider myself a liberal - but: Trump said "help is on its way" on Jan 13, and today Khamenei is dead. He kept his words. Free Iran!
You’re making an awfully big assumption that Khomenei being dead is going to result in a better situation for the average Iranian.
Hopefully any leader that consistently sticks with "Death to America"+"Death to Israel" will find himself dead.
The world needs leaders that belive in Peace and freedom. The world and Iran are much much better without dictators like Khomenei. Especially for an "average Iranian".
Leta hope the good side wins.
we sure dodged a bullet in 2024 elections and elected the right people to stop all these senseless wars that were one of the cornerstones of the election campaign
It's baffling to me that the DNC decided it was more important to support Israel than win the election and do good things at home.
Harris had all sorts of good things planned at home. It’s baffling to me that some voters thought it was more important to lose the election.
Voters don't lose elections, campaigns do. Harris failed, and this kind of "turning around of the blame" thing that Dems try to do is one of the reasons why they don't win elections: they never learn.
you mean election, not elections, right? cause you know, 2018, 2020…
The reality is that Trump voters were (are?) dumb as rocks and tricked by simple populist messaging. There was nothing harris could've done short of succumbing to populism herself, and cloaking her campaign in dishonesty, fear, and simpleton reasoning.
Maybe she shouldve done that, but you can see why she didn't.
> There was nothing harris could've done
Then, there's no hope for America. Why bother running a candidate? Waste of money that could be spent on local elections.
The reality is, Kamala could have won that election. Quite easily as well:
1. Don't send bill Clinton to Dearborn to lecture people on how it's ok to bomb Palestine actually
2. Don't try to pivot right on immigration, instead turn hard left: argue for citizenship for all undocumented immigrants with no criminal history
3. Ignore all culture war issues, focus on affordability and nothing else. Promise to raise taxes for the rich, end subsidies for oil and gas companies, and stop sending billions to Israel and other American imperialist vassals
How can you look at the current support for Trump and conclude you would've won in the US by not supporting Israel?
Because polls before and after the election were crystal clear on this point.
Over 30% of Biden 2020 voters said arming genocide was going to affect their vote.
That's BIDEN VOTERS.
80% of Democrats wanted an arms embargo.
Arming Israel meant giving up millions of votes in swing states, in an election that was lost by extremely slim margins in those states.
And before you ask, it was also clear from polling that ending support to Israel would have cost nearly zero votes from her base.
And the reason the Harris campaign didn't know this is because they didn't want to know. Campaign staffers were instructed to mark anyone who raised Gaza as "no response". Attendees of the DNC conventions were literally plugging their ears and shielding their eyes from protests, or even laughing about them.
Trump won by less than 50% of the vote and there are many polls that show the Biden administration's genocide was massively demotivating to democratic voters.
Supporting Hamas over Israel would've hurt more, probably.
False dichotomy.
is it? Because 'that part' of the Democrats were fully in support of Hamas. Have you seen the University protests?
If the Dems caved to that they would've alienated 10 voters for every 1 student that might show up at the polls if it doesn't rain.
Being against genocide doesn't mean one supports Hamas.
> student that might show up at the polls if it doesn't rain
Please don't do that. Your view of other people is quite sad.
These are statistics, not views of people. you can look up that certain groups rarely vote and other vote almost always.
You can’t participate in a reasonable and important discussions once you say that being part of the student protest meant supporting Hamas. It is a disqualifying statement from any discussion on this topic
You can also support neither.
[flagged]
Attacking Iran is bipartisan consensus unfortunately.
Schumer, for example, is an avowed Zionist and would love to attack Iran. Case in point: His leadership worked to delay Massey and Khanna's war powers resolution until after this attack so they could say "Well, I guess we're too late. Darn."
They absolutely do matter. Though not on this issue. Permanent war in the Middle East is a bipartisan issue.
Iran is not the middle east. In the actual middle east, there has been permanent war for >1500 years. And during all that time the middle east has started wars from Zimbabwe to Norway to Hong Kong.
On might think muslims would have learned something after the defeat of islam (as in the last coherent country/state structure) in 1919-1923 at the hands of muslims. Of course, islam as in the state, started a Naval war with the US, to defend the great institution of slavery ... and when they failed ... they started a second one.
And let's just not discuss whether some muslims (such as IS, but certainly not limited to them) are still trying to bring back slavery. Because we all know the answer.
> there has been permanent war for >1500 years.
You mean, like Europe being constantly at war for thousands of years?
They absolutely matter. Except on pretty much every foreign policy issue. And also universal healthcare. Oh and also the minimum wage, which has remained the same throughout several supermajorities belonging to both parties since the 70s when it was last updated. Oh also if you think corporations and their leaders should be held accountable for gambling with investor money and destabilizing the economy, or are angainst corporate welfare, unfortunately there’s no one you can vote for. Oh and also if you’re against congresspeople investing while being party to insider information, and with the ability to potentially sway regulatory votes in any given company’s favor, or dole out corporate welfare, unfortunately the leadership of both major parties participate fairly blatantly in that. Oh also, if you think the federal government should demonstrate a modicum of fiscal responsibility and not leave future generations in unrecoverable debt? Unfortunately no options for you. Also, if you would prefer your president not be friendly with a convicted pedophile, unfortunately that’s not gonna happen, we’ve gotta have at least some pedo-friendly people in office on both sides.
The ICE killings, deportations of US citizens, and the general anti-US sentiments around the world show that lesser evil exists, and that not voting can have consequences.
It's a shame that it took all this for the Democrats to even begin the dialog about Israeli money in politics, and perhaps they may even realize that nobody wants to vote for pro-war neoliberals.
The Dem establishment, informed by consultants, loves to go after "gettable" Republicans. Their theory is "Any 'rational' left-leaning voter will have no choice but to vote Dem!" But what they never seem to consider is that moving to the right can indeed disgust some portion of the base who instead will refuse to turn out.
"Lesser evil exists?" What if the "lesser evil" is just the good cop in a barely concealed good cop/bad cop routine?
It's not a bold statements that many senior democrats are thrilled that Trump is attacking Iran. This time, he's doing something they would have liked to but couldn't get away with.
Yes, voting matters, but organizing matters more. Until there's people who don't (secretly or openly) cheer for policies driving the world towards a cliff, voting matters little.
And on no account should you listen to the paid political operatives suggesting that the Democratic party's previous last minute offer would have gone significantly better.
I'm quite sure I was being clear when I called Democrats "pro-war neoliberals". Still, voting Democrat would have saved all those lives taken by the Trump administration up until this point.
Some of those lives, maybe. Did voting for Biden over Trump first time around save lives? Could be. But it also allowed Trump to return, angrier and four more years into his mental decline, because it didn't do anything about the root of the problem, which is the fantastic bipartisan corruption in the US ruling class.
All of the Democrats stood up and clapped when Trump talked about war with Iran. Did you miss that?
Two sides of the same coin: Republicans bomb 3rd world countries, and the Democrats gain slave labor from 3rd world countries refugees.
I did not miss that. That's exactly my point. Its two sides of the same coin on this issue; that's why Democrat voters stayed home. Doesn't change the fact that there would be a whole lot less heinous events in and outside the US if MAGA wasn't in power.
they do when you hear for months that we need to elect people that will stop the senseless wars - then they do matter
Who do you vote for exactly?
The government is compromised by Israeli blackmail. You vote against Israel you end up dead (JFK, Charlie Kirk) or blackmailed.
Even if you don't support US & IL standing in the frontlines against the terror regime, at least pray for the freedom of the people of Iran, 90m people held hostages by the regime. If you are pro-peace, do not be hypocrite, some wars are needed to defeat evil.
This is bad-faith rationalization. Looking at your comment history confirms that you only use HN to steer political narratives.
This might be a bad faith rationalization per your subjective humble opinion. But thank you for trying to educate me.
If you're not going to use HN for anything but politics, just leave. Your account is very clearly not a good-faith use of HN and anyone can click through your post history to see it.
Excuse me? What puts you in a position to ask that? Looking at our profiles you joined in 2024, while I've been here since 2011, please don't educate me with such brutal wording of how to behave, especially given I've said nothing wrong except writing opinions which you disagree with. AFAIK this is not USSR here and you're not Stalin.
I don't know, maybe I read the site guidelines? https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
It's pretty clear that your current purview of usage is against the comment guidelines. You're skating on thin ice behaving like that.US needs to start thinking that you are not givinig someone freedom bt bombing them. You have soo much of your problems but your money printing machine is working and that is only reason that you can say that. Its not about 90m people its about your pockets...
[flagged]
Ben Franklin was asked what kind of govt would the newly formed United States have. He was sadly right when he replied 'A republic, if you can keep it'
One of the (many) pretexts for the war, at least from Trump seems to be that Iran 'interfered' in US elections. From the Washington post
'President Donald Trump shared an article about Iran seeking to interfere in U.S. elections on his Truth Social account a couple of hours after U.S. strikes began in Iran early Saturday.
“Iran tried to interfere in 2020, 2024 elections to stop Trump, and now faces renewed war with United States,” the post read, with a link to a piece from Just the News, a conservative website from which Trump frequently shares articles. Shortly after, the president posted another article from the site, albeit unrelated to Iran; it was about the Fulton County, Georgia, prosecutor Fani T. Willis.'
Does the US even have a functioning Congress left? Who will even believe such a preposterous lie? Even the most die hard MAGA supporter will find it hard to believe this fabrication.
It's like Trump doesn't feel the need to even maintain the fig leaf of a causus belli. He must truly feel that he is now the king of the United States to be so emboldened.
/sought/ to interfere.
See Stephen Fry on attempted chemistry.
It’s high time for regime change in the US.
I'm surprised this has not been mentioned, for context:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_Iran_massacres
I think that's because nobody believes for one second that these strikes are a retaliation for that.
Epstein files and plummeting poll numbers are more likely reasons
My guess is Hegseth is cumming in his pants at the idea of starting the 10th Crusade.
Then Hegseth and Caine must be prepared to face the next Taiwan strait crisis with depleted munitions.
Not surprising - people don't count deaths in the Middle East if they're caused by fellow Middle Easterns, except Israel. Living in Europe I've never heard about a protest against Saddam (250,000 - 1,000,000 dead), Khamenei (30,000 in a week?), Assad (> 300,000 civilians) etc. This is business as usual. It's only news if someone else does it.
this is so true
Maybe because nobody believes in the "exporting democracy" excuse anymore
> nobody believes in the "exporting democracy" excuse
Has this been argued?
That’s the Bush doctrine! A belief that you can invade a country, remove the power center, and democracy will spring forth. You don’t even need to speak the local language, read any books about the country you’re attacking, or talk to any locals! Just go for it and democracy will magically spring into existence.
Not directly but OP seemed to intuit some sort of moral justification for this war of aggression ("humanitarian reasons"), and few people believe that to be a key motivating factor for the White House.
> Not directly but OP seemed to intuit some sort of moral justification for this war of aggression
There is an absolute moral justification for this war. Saying that US is the aggressor here is an absolute revisionism of history. Let us not pretend that Islamic Republic minded its own business since its inception, and suddenly the US and Israel decided to wage war on it.
One example of IR's aggression is Beirut bombing in 1983 sponsored and planned by IR.
Both from an international rights and from a moral point of view you're objectively wrong. This is not even worth a discussion. The fact that you need cite a terrorist attack from 1983 to justify an illegal war of aggression in 2026 instigated by a US president without Congressional oversight speaks volumes.
> Islamic Republic minded its own business since its inception
That's a straw man argument since nobody claimed that.
Just to anticipate another weak argument that is a non-starter, a war of aggression is also illegal if it is started under the pretense of caring about a human rights situation. This kind of justification is quite common anyway. For the same reason, preventive wars are also prohibited and immoral. Not even you want to live in a world where such wars are common, you're more likely merely arguing from the perspective of someone whose country you believe to be in a position of strength.
> Both from an international rights and from a moral point of view you're objectively wrong.
Can you clarify the "moral point of view", please?
> This is not even worth a discussion.
How do you know without a discussion that you are right?
> The fact that you need cite a terrorist attack from 1983 to justify an illegal war of aggression in 2026 instigated by a US president without Congressional oversight speaks volumes.
This is a straw man you just made. The 1983 event is to show that Iran was in forever war with the US through either 3rd parties or directly on the territories of other states.
> That's a straw man argument since nobody claimed that.
Now it seems we are in a strange situation. If it is a war of aggression by the US, the implication is that Iran was not aggressive towards US. But we know it is not true. So, which is it?
Also, how would congress authorization make US non-aggressor here?
> Can you clarify the "moral point of view", please?
The moral point of view is that a war of aggression violates the sovereignty of the people in the attacked country. The aggressor country's officials are not elected by the people of the defending country, nor do they in any other way represent the people of that country. They have no right to decide the fate of the people in another country.
> How do you know without a discussion that you are right?
I'm reasonably certain about that because I've studied philosophy and worked in ethics, though not specifically on any issues concerning international rights. I'm also overall a well-educated person with an intact sense of justice.
> This is a straw man you just made. The 1983 event is to show that Iran was in forever war with the US through either 3rd parties or directly on the territories of other states.
No it's not a straw man. You came up with the 1983 event, not me. It would have been a straw man argument if I suddenly had come up with that. My reply to your position is that there are no "forever wars" - this category does not exist in international right and obviously makes no sense. Once you start justifying your attacks with a "forever war" you're in the realm of historical justifications, and these are principally wrong. Why? Because you can find some historical justification for just about any war you want to start. The whole world would be constantly at war if historical justifications were used and deemed acceptable. They are not acceptable.
> Now it seems we are in a strange situation. If it is a war of aggression by the US, the implication is that Iran was not aggressive towards US. But we know it is not true. So, which is it?
I believe you're trolling. In any case, that is not the implication. Not every act of aggression is an act of war. However, the US military has just started a widespread bombing campaign, and that is an act of war. The US is the aggressor not just from an international rights point of view, they're the aggressor as evidenced by the speech of the US President.
> Also, how would congress authorization make US non-aggressor here?
Not at all, and I didn't say that.
> The moral point of view is that a war of aggression violates the sovereignty of the people in the attacked country. The aggressor country's officials are not elected by the people of the defending country, nor do they in any other way represent the people of that country. They have no right to decide the fate of the people in another country.
Interesting. So, US intervention in WW2 was not moral? Germans did not consent.
> I know that because I've studied philosophy and worked in ethics, though not specifically on any issues concerning international rights. I'm also overall a well-educated person with an intact sense of justice.
And? So, you cannot be mistaken?
> Because you can find some historical justification for just about any war you want to start. The whole world would be constantly at war if historical justifications were used and deemed acceptable. They are not acceptable.
Great. Then no war is acceptable. Any action that is not yet take is in the past, and thus historical. Why respond?
You see, thinking in absolutes will take you only this far. The hardest issues to reason about are in the gray area, where you have to make a judgement call because it is not a clear cut issue. Unlike you, I realize that it's not a simple "aggression" but rather way more complicated issue.
> I believe you're trolling.
I am not. I am having an opposing point of view to yours. However, I am not basing my argument on my personal qualities as the most moral person in the world. I am trying to use universal values and reasoning.
Let's keep it short, I'll give you the last word if you want.
1. The US "intervention" in WW2 was fully justified because the US was attacked. It's also justified to help another country that is attacked, for example the US campaign against Iraq during the First Gulf war was justified. Both were defensive actions, not wars of aggression. Preventive wars are also wars of aggression, though, and classified as such by international law. There are fairly direct equivalents of all of this in regular penal law.
2. I never claimed I cannot be mistaken. It's best to focus on arguments, not persons.
> Great. Then no war is acceptable.
War has at least two sides (often more). A war of aggression is never acceptable. You've got that right. That's also how it's viewed in international law. Defending against a war of aggression is always acceptable. Helping someone defend against a war of aggression is also acceptable. There is a third category, a military intervention by a broad alliance legitimized by some international body. That is in the "it depends" category but plays no role here. Now countries that start wars of aggression know all that and therefore often argue they're just defending themselves. I'm stating that this is a pretense and not a correct justification in this particular case of the US attacking Iran. I'm not planning to go into the details why this is the case, it is obvious enough anyway. Just to make this clear.
I have no comments about the rest of your comment, which, frankly speaking, to me mostly sounds like self-aggrandizing remarks. I was mostly referring to how established international law looks at the matter and your personal views interest me less. Have a good day!
It seems to me that your position is based on a certain belief and not reasoning.
Personal attacks? Besides, you aren't doing much reasoning yourself.
What else does "regime change" as a goal refer to?
Are you saying those protested actually got funded by Israel and because Iran killed them, now Israel is retaliating?
Now I really wonder if those protests were indeed fueled and funded by Israel, because we have seen videos of mosques being burned down by protestors, which is strange for Shia Muslim country, even if they don't like their government
"A 2020 Online Survey by Gamaan found that 8.8% Iranians identifying as Atheist and a large fraction (22.2%) identifying as not following an organized religion and only 40% self identified as Muslims."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secularism_in_Iran
Compare how much Israel was in the news for targeting militants these past two years in Gaza.
How biased is the press? Iran slaughters 36k people in a week and... crickets. Israel refuses to let its hostages die while Hamas hides out in hospitals and schools and the world is against Israel not Iran.
If you think Trump did that because he cares about Democracy I have some news for you regarding the Jan 6 rioters...
Yeah, the:
>Trump urges Iranians to keep protesting, saying 'help is on its way'
stuff if pretty relevant.
Because HNers are not so gullible to swallow and regurgitate this pretext. The Trump administration doesn't care about the people of Iran, any more than Bush cared about the Iraqi Kurds or Afghan women. Just a pretext for geopolitics.
Rookie numbers. Wait until they got liberated
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War
There are reports that Ali Khamenei has been killed:
https://www.iranintl.com/en/202602280738
Here is a 12 minute video showing OSINT of various attacks, and Iranian counter-attacks.
https://youtu.be/ZmtRhiI9uWU
Someone do the US next we need regime change before the election seasons martial law plunges us into civil war.
The fall of the Iranian regime would be a strategic turning point not just for the Middle East, but globally.
For more than four decades, the Islamic Republic has been one of the primary state sponsors of terror. Hezbollah is not an organic Lebanese movement — it is an Iranian creation. Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad are sustained by Iranian money and weapons. The Houthis’ missile and drone capabilities exist because Tehran supplied and trained them. Shi’a militias in Iraq killed hundreds of Americans with Iranian-provided EFPs. Today, Iranian Shahed drones are striking Ukrainian apartment buildings.
This is not passive instability. It is deliberate, systematic export of violence as state policy.
At the same time, the regime has consistently pursued a nuclear capability while publicly calling for the destruction of Israel and “death to America.” Even if one assumes deterrence logic would hold, a nuclear umbrella for Iran would dramatically increase its freedom to escalate proxy warfare across the region.
The downstream geopolitical effects are not hypothetical. Without Iranian drone and missile transfers, Russia’s ability to sustain certain strike campaigns in Ukraine would be materially degraded. Without heavily discounted Iranian oil shipments, China’s energy calculus shifts, particularly under sanctions pressure. Without Tehran’s funding pipelines, Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis become far more constrained actors rather than semi-state militaries.
There is also precedent for preventive action against nuclear programs. Israel’s 1981 strike on Iraq’s Osirak reactor (Operation Opera) was widely condemned at the time; decades later, most analysts agree it delayed Saddam Hussein’s nuclear ambitions. Likewise, Israel’s 2007 strike on Syria’s Al-Kibar reactor (Operation Orchard) prevented the Assad regime from developing a covert nuclear capability. Both operations were controversial in the moment and regarded as stabilizing in retrospect.
Preventing a hostile regime from acquiring nuclear capability has historically proven wiser than managing it after the fact.
Yes, regime change carries risk. So does allowing the world’s most aggressive revolutionary theocracy to entrench itself indefinitely while arming proxies from Beirut to Sana’a to Moscow. The status quo is not stable. It is violent by design.
If a regime that funds terrorism on three continents, arms Russia during a European war, and openly seeks nuclear weapons is dismantled, history is unlikely to judge that harshly.
It will likely judge it as overdue.
Sorry if it isn't but there are multiple markers of AI writing.
Crypto going down while Gold going up (on XAUt) suggests the market thinks this war is not going to go necessarily to the US/Israel advantage.
as iran is a major player in crypto money laundering then it could price its fall
https://www.iranintl.com/en/202602279443
why?
is not crypto going down on any "multinational"* war?
*war amid thai and kambodgia is not "multinational" kind of, just example of not any
There wasn't a war between the Siam and Khmer, just some clashes plus their conflict is irrelevant to the rest of the world. I am not aware of crypto going down during that time? If I remember correctly it was close to ATH.
This was doesn't benefit the US whatsoever. I am getting tired of our taxes going to another useless war, like the Iraq one, that only benefits a foreign entity, aka Israel.
Iran could have been contained and Obama was right on his approach. We don't know the details of the strikes, but I hope it doesn't go into a full blown war, but this will be another Iraq like disaster, and american people are getting tired of doing the bidding of Isreal, a country that is already mirred into doing a genocide. This war is already unpopular in pools. Iran's regime is terrible to its people, but this has the potential to be another disaster where countless of people could die.
>We don't know the details of the strikes, but I hope it doesn't go into a full blown war
Well, if the Chinese are smart, they will capitalize on this opportunity. They can prop up the Iranian regime with intelligence, weapons, and financial support the same way US & EU prop up Ukraine. The purpose would be to bleed US munitions stocks even faster than they already are, as well as increase attritional losses in platforms and personnel. China's stranglehold on rare earths and their export restrictions are making it more difficult for the US to restore its weapons stockpile. I'm sure China can crunch some numbers to identify the point of maximum weakness if the US is forced to sustain an anti-Iran air and naval campaign 30/60/90+ days. Then Xi can try to overlap that window of weakness with one of the two invasion windows against Taiwan (mostly due to weather in the Taiwan Strait). I don't think the PLA is dumb enough to try a full amphibious assault, but they could definitely initiate their blockade then.
I don’t believe China has any intention to support anyone by military means. Best case they will keep on trading and that’s it. Iran is alone. Maybe Turkey makes a crazy move to support seeing it sees itself as next in line if Iran falls. This is the biggest present to European powers, which I think will be hoping that it will keep US busy for rest of Trump’s presidency. They have the Ukraine excuse to distance themselves and let everyone get weaker while they arm themselves up. Internal political tensions in US will also give them leeway to more actively influence American politics and these will be even worse with a long war pitched against a scandal background. Then again, Trump may be a genius, get this done in a couple of months and leave everyone grasping for a new strategy.
It would take weeks for China to shop stuff. (Unless they have done their homework in advance)
There's been rumors of Chinese kit arriving in Iran, but nothing concrete:
https://moderndiplomacy.eu/2026/02/10/how-iran-gained-the-ab...
If China didn't anticipate the US attacking Iran after Maduro was deposed and the resulting impacts on their oil supplies, then they are asleep at the wheel.
indeed. One of the only positive things Obama did internationally.
The regime may be horrific, but the only route out was through supporting and encoraging change and opening up and progressive forces.
It's a country with 90 million people, and many groups and external influences. Could end up like Iraq.
and it's Europe that will experince the political chaos as result of pressure from refugees, not the US.
It won't go to a full blown war. They will bomb some stuff and declare victory. Once they sailed two carrier battle groups over there an attack of some sort was a foregone conclusion.
lol we all hope
If they don’t put boots on the ground, it won’t. They can bomb Iran back to the stoneage, as it has no viable air defenses.
I guess countless Iranians dying in the process doesn’t matter at all? As long as the Americans are killing them from far away, it’s all good?
Isn't it always this to be the case?
> Iran could have been contained and Obama was right on his approach.
So you don't care about people forced to live under IRGC rule and their desire to export their Islamic ideals elsewhere?
Do you really believe this “altruistic” angle?
Yes, I don't want to live under Islamic rule.
I might be convinced that the Administration was concerned about people being forced to live under Islamic rule if it was as eager for war with Saudi Arabia as it is with Iran.
(I wouldn't support it any more in that case, but I would be more inclined to believe that its motivation might actually have anything to do with "Islamic rule".)
Many people want to though, and no one is forcing you to.
Where do you live where Islamic rule is a worry?
Note how they won't answer. They're affected by media FUD.
No. There are dozens of countries with despotic regimes, including Israel. And I also have no interest in zionist or any religious ideals exported either. If this were justification we would also be bombing Israel, which has committed far worse crimes than Iran.
That regime in the US. It is truly baffling.
Using the game theory, shouldn’t the nice, forgiving and not being a pushover the winning strategy?
I’ve always felt the US won trust and respect with these characteristics. It looks like we are now shifting strategy and I wonder where this will lead to.
The US seems in practice to be doing more of a bomb the bad guys strategy. I guess that could work? It's a bit random - Trump's instinct seems to include attacking Canada and Denmark but he doesn't get buy in for those thankfully.
https://bsky.app/profile/70sbachchan.bsky.social/post/3mfwas...
Does anybody can trust andnegotiate with USA?
Bored of Peace
I think its only just getting started
I thought the forever wars and quarrels with people we know nothing of were over?
I have to wonder how much of this is driven by Israel accounting for the risk of less favorable US relationship in the future.
Pre-emptive violence; not even justified with a narrative of escalating threat.
Bleak for anybody who knows their history.
I think just forego the hypocrisy and have the Israeli's move the White House over there and put one of their own in it instead of pulling the strings.
Those who know their history also know that the current American administration is of a kind that usually ascends following the rules, but then never voluntarily leaves power.
So I don't think Israel has anything to fear there.
Not only the current administration, no US administration in the recent past or foreseeable future will not be okay with fighting wars for Israel at the cost of American lives and wealth. Some might hesitate or push back more than others, but the end result is the same.
[flagged]
If history is anything to go by, expect a fire at the Capitol some time in October resulting in a national emergency being declared.
You can take that to your bookie.
Talk is cheap. Are you prepared to put money, or anything valuable, where your mouth is?
Yea! Suggesting the guy who refuses to acknowledge he lost the 2020 election, caused a whole to do on January 6th over it, has printed up TRUMP 2026 hats in the White House, and constantly “jokes” about being owed a 3rd term might not be too interested in following the rules is totally unhinged and a “strong claim”. And the only way to prove you’re serious about this opinion is to gamble on it!
> And the only way to prove you’re serious about this opinion is to gamble on it!
If it's a strong claim it's not much of a gamble, is it? Talk is cheap.
I miss the days when having a financial stake in something was considered a conflict of interest, and not a weakly held belief. Your whole transactional nihilism schtick here is extremely gross. People can have genuine beliefs, and share those without being motivated by pumping their own bags.
Showing that one's claim is not hollow can be achieved in a variety of ways. A prediction market was just a suggestion of one possibility. I'm open to other ways that bojan can show that their claim isn't just empty venting.
DO YOU THINK MOST PEOPLE WOULD AGREE? CARE TO MAKE IT INTERESTING? WHY DON'T YOU PUT IT UP ON POLYMARKET, BRO? OTHERWISE, YOUR WORDS ARE EMPTY VENTING.
(See how dumb this is?)
Yeah, that's pretty dumb. It's also not what I said. The original comment is a vague insinuation
> Those who know their history also know that the current American administration is of a kind that usually ascends following the rules, but then never voluntarily leaves power.
and not really becoming of a top level Hacker News post. I requested a clarification from bojan and they did not respond to the request. We're all welcome to make our own interpretation of that.
Trump makes a lot of claims of unfair elections, declaring a state of emergency and is talking about a third term. Hard to really know for real what will happen but it is suspicious.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2026/02/26/trump-ele...
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politic...
Or ICE ensuring it is a ”fair” election with the ”correct” outcome.
Not OP, but that post clearly was alluding to Hitler coming to power democratically. That they don't need to worry was a very dark joke. Anyway, it's just history.
Not just Hitler.
There are more recent examples in Europe, like Putin, Orban and Vucic. All of them got elected fairly, and all of them engaged in the process of slowly but surely breaking democratic institutions and checks and balances down. The guidebook is actually exactly the same. Putin is now 25 years in power, Orban 16 years and Vucic 14 years.
You could say that those Eastern European democracies were fragile to begin with, but what MAGA is so far very much successfully doing is fully matching the existing proven guidebook.
If Polymarket were legal in my country I'd actually consider betting on it.
Literally this week, for the first time ever, a majority of Americans polled favored Palestine over Israel.
To be clear, I'm not trying to suggest that's why we're bombing Iran today. Just pointing out a data point supporting your hypothesis.
The US has moved half of its navy in the region, and there are doubts about its support?
“In the future” is not “now”.
Neither the current administration nor Israel are particularly popular with the US public today, and those are correlated in that Israel has particularly lost support from Democrats and Independents in the US, suggesting that a change in power (legislative or executive, and especially both) in the US government could very easily spell much less favorable US policy toward Israel.
Normal people are starting to call themselves goyim and aren’t afraid to call themselves antisemites anymore. You can look at this from many angles (sitting here in Eastern Europe watching history repeat itself again in 4 years is a very discomforting feeling), but all of them are signs of Israel losing US citizenship support at an unprecedented velocity.
And this is why the Ellisons are quickly ramping up their media empire with the purchase of Paramount (which included CBS who is now ran by Bari Weiss), the freshly inked Warner Brothers deal, and their part ownership of US TikTok (of which Oracle hosts the data now).
>Normal people are starting to call themselves goyim and aren’t afraid to call themselves antisemites anymore.
Normal people distinguish between Israel and Jews and call themselves antizionists. It's Zionists who blur the distinction.
There are several countries throughout history where the citizens have been absolutely obsessed with their own race and considered the crusader state to be the sole representative of it. It never ended well.
And they’ve blurred it so much and thrown around the accusation so frequently and with so little hesitancy that many people are starting to simply not care anymore.
Israel is the Jewish state.
[flagged]
No, no one who calls themself an anti-semite is a normal person, and the people doing that are still a narrow bigoted fringe (though, yes, it is a fringe that Trumpism has emboldened tk greater boldness, like many other overlapping bigotries, and somewhat paradoxically given the way the Trump Administration is itself supportive of not only Israel in the broad sense, but of accelerating the policies most opposed by the public in particular).
Most of the opponents of Israel and its policies in the US are either anti-Zionists who are not and do not identify as anti-Semites, or people who don't even identify as anti-Zionists just opponents of Israeli policy. And many in both groups are Jewish themselves.
That is only 6% of our Navy. Not half.
"Let's do it now, when they'd still move half their navy there for us, rather than in the future, when they might not."
More like "The US has arrived as we asked, and the same will happen in the future every time"
Even assuming that would always hold for the USA as such, America isn't necessarily a fixture in Semitic eschatology.
And it happened on a Friday night. Best time of the week for the least news impact.
In the great age of grift wars ideally last no more than the time between Friday market close and Sunday futures open.
More specifically, seems to be driven by Netanyahu's political accounting. Starting a potential major war going into mid-terms is pretty inconvenient for Trump who could be looking at impeachment over Epstein. But Netanyahu is facing trial and October-7 investigation commissions more imminently and can't wait that long. Netanyahu trumps Trump, evidently.
> is pretty inconvenient for Trump who could be looking at impeachment over Epstein
I mean, it is a pretty convenient distraction from the epstein files tho, so win-win for Trump/Netanyahu
It was Trump or his immediate environmetn who asked Israeli to attack Iran first (better optics); Israel would have never done this without American approval. Did Israel want this to happen though ? Yes. But so did the Americans. I guess the negotiations went badly.
"Negotiations"
[dead]
[dead]
[flagged]
I suspect the Venn diagram of those who: 1) are aggrieved that America covers the bulk of the cost of world policing and 2) believe that America has a natural right to unilaterally determine foreign regime change, overlap greatly.
I knew it was foolish, but I really was somewhat hopeful that the American regime’s stated doctrinal shift was true and they really were going to fuck right off from the world stage, even just a little. Naturally, we suffer the opposite.
How did the US justify this?
The way they justify everything in the modern time.
“The strong do what they will. The weak suffer what they must.”
If you are in the US, pray that you are never weak.
They stopped doing that, really.
You might've missed it but the "department of defense" is now "department of war'.
Here is their attempt: https://apnews.com/article/iran-us-trump-address-f662a4f3378...
1. Iranians protested.
2. Islamists massacred them.
3. Trump said "help is on its way" ( https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/jan/13/trump-promises... )
4. Now is the help.
---
Trump also said that when he says things he means them, unlike Obama's red lines in Syria (his words). When he said that, it was pretty clear he couldn't back off of attacking Iran.
I assume it took so long because he's going for regime change, not just a few bombings. When Iraq invaded Kuwait, it took the US 5 months to launch a counter-invasion (mostly because of coalition building).
> Trump also said that when he says things he means them
He says all sorts of things. Remember when Iran's nuclear facilities were "obliterated" and any "suggestions otherwise are fake news"? https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles/2025/06/irans-nuclear-fa...
Weapons of mass destruction, as usual.
We all saw this coming decades ago, they weren't exactly subtle.
If some chinese samples of this unstoppable carrier killer made its way to Iran already.
https://www.reuters.com/world/china/iran-nears-deal-buy-supe...
Also, the US News media silence on this is noteworthy.
https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=reuters+cm-302+missile&ia=w...
If Iran sinks a carrier then the us congress will declare an actual war and that will seal Irans fate. Also, seal the fate of hundreds of thousands of lives.
So US citizens like you actually expect other countries to accept being attacked by you without as little as defending themselves?
It appears to be the position of much of Europe's leaders too.
Please show where I said anything of the sort?
Still reading into my comment and intent. I simply posted as
1. an under-reported fact pertaining to matters of military strategy. 2. The lack of coverage in the US News Media
BTW, you're also presumptuous AND mistaken about my nationality. As if nationality is a indicator or in your case a guarantee of a person's ideology.
You are a us citizen and comment against the right of countries to defend themselves against the us. How come?
Anyone can do whatever they want. I’m just saying sinking a us carrier doesn’t stop the conflict and, instead, makes it 2 or 3 orders of magnitude worse.
According to the Times of Israel Khamenei has been killed. I think that already counts as actual war.
Reuters coverage for those interested:
"Khamenei's body has been found and he is confirmed dead, Israeli official says"
<https://www.reuters.com/world/iran-crisis-live-explosions-te...>
Times of Israel: <https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog-february-28-2026/>
I'm not so sure.
I think Trump would taco.
A carrier is fair game, especially when you shoot first.
There wouldn't be a coalition with half of Europe. Because of bridges burned.
This seems to be a short range (290km) anti-ship cruise missile. Definitely not an unstoppable carrier killer
What could threaten US carries are China’s DF-21D/26D – anti-ship ballistic missiles with reported ranges of > 2000km – and Iran is not getting them
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/chinas-carrier-killer...
Iran has marvelous cities, sim of the greatest humanity archeological treasures.
It hurts my heart to see Americans destroying them (and the thousands of lifes).
Isn't Iran also famous for destroying landmarks that don't glorify the official state religion?
Iran also has a gang of murderous theocratic nutters running it, massacring their citizens for taking to the streets and singing songs, undermining foreign societies, and lending their knowhow and drones to other, bigger psychopaths for their invasions. It'll gladden my heart if the leadership is destroyed, even if some old pretty masonry gets chipped along the way.
> massacring their citizens for taking to the streets and singing songs
The US is also doing this albeit fewer people.
"fewer" doing a lot of work here
One leader was kidnapped and brought to America to face justice and another was killed in his own base and not a single American died.
Wow.
> and not a single American died.
That's an interesting scope of collateral damage.
A mere 8 months ago, Trump and his cronies were saying that Iran’s nuclear program was “totally obliterated” every chance they got.
16 months ago, he was campaigning on no new wars.
Presumably, what he meant was 'No, new wars!'
I don’t know why anyone even bothers with this anymore. Literally every single word that comes out of his mouth is a lie. It’s actually staggering to think about. It’s like he is incapable of doing anything that right, correct, or true.
And perhaps more importantly, “Suggestions otherwise are fake news”
https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles/2025/06/irans-nuclear-fa...
New day, new talking points. Surely this isn’t a surprise to you?
What are that pizza place google statistics?
Did anybody need those? The deployment of half the US army near israel was not enough evidence?
Those spiked like 50x in the past 4 months. Doesn't seem to mean anything.
The only time it didn't spike was for the Venezuela Maduro operation.
At this point, the pizza index is another vector of (dis)information managed by the Pentagon.
Once that side channel was found, it was kind of inevitable it would be plugged. Even under a normal administration, that's an opsec leak.
Seriously. They can put a Burger King anywhere on the planet in 24 hours, but can't do their own pizza at the Pentagon?
"Trump Rolls the Dice on Regime Change" (1)
What a headline. Anybody else have this on their election day bingo card?
Midterms should be a blood bath though, right? Right? (insert Anakin meme).
1. https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/trump-rolls-the-dice-o...
one thing though - food and oil supplies at risk - if the airspace and shipping lanes remain shut down for 1 month or more.
people in the Middle East will literally starve
and china will run out of fuel - though they've gone mostly electric
> though they've gone mostly electric
Who on earth told you this?
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/energy-consumption-by-sou...
Currently an absolute shit load of C17s landing in Germany after leaving the PG region. I guess we know which country finally caved and let the US use them for whatever fresh conquest this is.
Germany is one of the most pro-Israel countries and known for using excessive police voilance against pro-Palestina protestors and strongly denies that there is a genocide going on in Gaza.
And its not allowed to film the police crimes. They can lawfully demand to turn your camera off, because of privacy laws. Welcome to Germany.
If Americans would like to better understand what it is that they actually did last year: https://www.liberalcurrents.com/killing-for-content/
Regardless of how it ends, and it can go both ways, we're witnessing history here. This feels like a much bigger development than Russia-Ukraine. Iran is a major partner for Russia and China, mostly for military technology and oil. Hope it's not a start of WW3.
> This feels like a much bigger development than Russia-Ukraine.
Russia-Ukraine war is 1M+ combat casualties deep and is nowhere near finished. You are out of touch.
But russia-ukraine is also a much more contained war between 2 parties that will likely end in a stalemate.
The middle east is a much more tangled web of alliances and hatreds, i think the iranian regime falling would have much more harder to predict second order geopolitical effects.
> But russia-ukraine is also a much more contained war between 2 parties that will likely end in a stalemate.
The whole of Europe is affected, it might seem contained only if you live very far away. Every European country is affected in one way or another.
It's not a stalemate if Ukraine ends up losing 30% of its territory. That's Russian victory.
Ukraine will never de jure give up those territories and majority of nations will never recognize those as part of Russia. And it’s 20%, not 30%. Pre full scale war it was 7%, now it is 19%, so during the five years they’ve captured 12% of Ukraine's territory.
Russian goals were:
- Quick decapitation - fail
- Change of government - fail
- Prove that majority of Ukrainians are phone Russians and the moment greater Russia comes everyone will see that Ukraine is not a real state - fail
- Make second Belarus out of Ukraine - fail
- Stop NATO enlargement, Finland and Sweden joined NATO essentially doubling border with NATO - fail
- Dissuade Ukraine from joining EU and make it pro Russian first - fail
- Prove that Russia is a great military power on par with US that can topple regimes at will - fail
- Make Russia strategically independent- fail, Russia is now completely dependent on China
- Destabilize EU - fail, Europe is united like never under US/Russia/China threat
This war will enter history as one of the worst blunders.
> It's not a stalemate if Ukraine ends up losing 30% of its territory. That's Russian victory.
I'd call that both sides losing. Russia certainly did not achieve its geopolitical goals with that outcome.
I hope you're joking. This is such "Ukrainians are just Russians by a different name" logic. China, Belarus, and North Korea are deep in this conflict, so are all the European countries. There's no stalemate end to this war, only a temporary cease fire or the collapse of Russia.
Russia and Ukraine are now at war for the fifth year running, you're just used to the fact that there is ongoing war in Europe.
Depends how you count “big”. Russia-Ukraine has had about 1 million deaths, and has completely changed how Europe thinks about security- it’s hardly a sideshow. Then again, not much territory has changed hands and there has been no regime change yet.
> not much territory has changed hands
Russia occupies about 20% of Ukraine, an area three times larger than the country I live in (the Netherlands).
Majority of that is since 2014, gains since 2022 are way lower
Not true, prior to 2022 February Russia controlled small parts of Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts, now they control them almost entirely, as well as good chunks of Zaporizhzhia and Kherson oblasts.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/2/24/mapping-russian-att...
https://understandingwar.org/research/russia-ukraine/russian...
All were captured during their thrift store blitzkrieg. Kherson, Zaporizhzhia and Mariupol were captured because pro Russian rats sabotaged mine defenses in Kherson oblast.
One million casualties is injured, missing, and dead… not just the dead.
> Russia-Ukraine has had about 1 million deaths
I wish... But estimates say between 230,000 and 468,500 dead orcs.
> 1 million deaths
Casulties, not deaths.
The casualty-to-death ratio in Ukraine is surprising for modern times, especially on the Russian side. Counting civilians, Ukrainians, Russians, I can see the death count being close to 1M. Partisan sources already put Russian combat losses at around 1.2M personnel. Ukrainian losses might be more than half what Russian losses are. The 1M deaths estimate doesn't seem outlandish.
No it's not. This is an air strike campaign, no boots on the ground. It'll end in two weeks. There is no chance China or Russia get involved, like last time, so "WW3" is completely non-credible.
> ...no boots on the ground. It'll end in two weeks
Why do we never learn from history?
There are no ground ops and there is no possibility of any significant ground ops given current deployments.
And if Iran gets incredibly lucky and sinks an aircraft carrier or lands a sufficiently lucky hit on a military base?
Will there still be no possibility of ground deployments?
Yes ... why do we never learn from history? What's with the selective memory?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Israel_war
The previous campaign lasted a whole 13 days and WW3 didn't start. I'm not sure why anybody thinks it'll be different now or why Russia or China would bother going to war for Iran. That makes zero sense.
> The previous campaign lasted a whole 13 days and WW3 didn't start. I'm not sure why anybody thinks it'll be different now or why Russia or China would bother going to war for Iran. That makes zero sense.
We did not move 1/3 of operational USAF capacity and 33% of our deployable Navy for limited strikes.
Okay, and where's the army? I'm not sure what you're expecting without boots to put on the ground. Are the pilots gonna be ejecting to go hunt Khamenei? This argument is meaningless. Again, none of this can lead to WW3 and none of this can turn into a protracted war as in Ukraine-Russia.
You can stop when you have no idea what you're talking about, you know.
You seem like a Trump voter who voted for no more wars doing damage control
Boots on the ground can happen at any time if Iran manages to either hit one of the thousands of US assets in the region or worse they resort to terrorism with a theatrical attack like 9/11 which ended up costing so many lives , money and freedoms ranging from TSA literally up your ass to the destruction of privacy online and offline…..and of course as we all know boots on the ground
What do the three points of the navy trident represent?
The big difference with previous campaign is that now, the Iranian regime is facing existential threat. While the previous war was more a of a show for respective domestic publics, this one feels like there is no coming back.
Of course Russia or China won't go to war for Iran - nobody is saying that. They can get involved though, just as Europe is involved in Ukraine war.
They will provide intel and weapons like NATO in Ukraine.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/trump-military-...
One day later and they've doubled their predictions already.
> a whole 13 days and WW3 didn't start.
Also you moved the goalposts here. The quote was "no boots on the ground, over in two weeks."
Chinese state media is already reporting it's "unlikely to be contained" https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/202602/28/WS69a2a669a310d686...
A regional war isn't a world war
Bombing never wins wars, with one exception.
bombing of: -N.Vietnam -Germany -Serbia -Sudan -Tunisia -England
Exception:
-Japan
That is not to say bombing doesn't have its uses in war. The bombing of the oilfields of Ploesti in Romania severely damaged the German war machine. But it took Russian boots on the ground in Berlin to effect a German surrender.
Being Serbian, the bombing campaign of 1999. was successful. It lead to the (temporary, 12-years long) regime change, and to the de-facto independence of Kosovo. It ended the war.
While it's possible, it's unlikely. Iranian regime is in a corner - they have no choice anymore but to escalate, and escalate quickly.
There might be boots on the ground eventually given Trump's speech.
>The lives of courageous American heroes may be lost and we may have casualties. That often happens in war, but we’re doing this not for now. We’re doing this for the future, and it is a noble mission
Very foreboding.
Iran is hitting back at US bases so it could be related to those risks, rather than a full invasion.
(Crazy idea, maybe the people shouldn’t be left in the dark about their government’s war plans by having a deliberate legislative body debate and vote on it)
It's a sinister statement, but despite everything the U.S. has moved to the region, they didn't move the stuff they would need to move for ground operations.
Venezuela didn’t take many boots. Maybe we can decapitate the Iranian regime in the same way.
I feel like maybe you have no idea how that Maduro takedown happened. That is not possible here.
Could be more of an intimidation tactic. The United States of Israel wouldnt go to a land war in Iran, that's unwinnable
This is about Iran, not Iraq.
There's no land campaign. It's an isolated series of strikes for PR reasons and wishful thinking about Iran collapse.
What happens when Iran responds by firing missiles on Israel or on a US ship and inflicts major casualties on either targets, though?
Even the US can't move an Iran sized invasion force overnight. It was a couple of years from 9/11 until the invasion of Iraq.
Exactly. See, sinking of the General Belgrano.
As big as this is, the Russia-Ukraine war pretty much marked the end of the post-WW2 era and redefined global relations between the powers. In that sense, this is yet another major shift within this new era. But also, the series of events that led to this point does connect to the Russia-Ukraine war, and maybe doesn't happen without it.
Otoh, what russia desperately needs in the short term is oil prices to go up, so there is probably a major silver lining for them.
> Otoh, what russia desperately needs in the short term is oil prices to go up, so there is probably a major silver lining for them.
And they will again appear weak and incapable, unable to help their allies
> And they will again appear weak and incapable, unable to help their allies
Iran and Russia have various partnership agreements, but are not allies. And Russia has already demonstrated that it doesn't support what are, on paper, close allies in the CSTO, so not defending a non-ally strategic partner really doesn't move the needle on their credibility.
Isn’t this a fact set in stone by now? Armenia, Syria, Iran in the previous months
Iran’s oil is sanctioned hence not on public market. Does it really have much influence?
China buys Iranian oil, if they’ll start to but oil from non-sanctioned countries it will push prices up. But the biggest reason for prices to go up is the risk that Iran will attack tankers in the strait of Hormuz or oil infrastructure on Arabian peninsula.
Except that Iran's oil also going to end up in non-sanctioned market, pushing prices down.
It does, but the primary concern is iran stopping oil transit by other countries in the strait of hormuz, not their own oil.
Which they did just start to do.
Yes, because if it stops flowing, demand on the public market will increase, and prices will rise.
WW3 started with the invasion of Ukraine.
I don't think it's bigger than Russia-Ukraine - it's part of it. This is all about destabilising Iran's incumbent government, which is probably a good thing at the moment. It'll damage supply lines to Russia's Ukraine offensive, give the chance for Iranian citizens to rise up against Khamenei and the IRGC and break the command chain for their foreign proxy operations. Part of Dugan's work on geopolitics, which they seem to be following to the word (c'mon guys seriously?) suggests that Moscow and Tehran should be allied which they are behind the scenes.
As for the nuclear threat, literally Iran said it was going to destroy Israel to the point it had a massive countdown clock in Tehran until Israel blew it up, so meh. If I was on the receiving end of that threat I'd make it a policy to respond to it, escalation or not. I make no claims of the accuracy of the threats past IAEA being unable to verify they aren't enriching stuff.
Doubt it'll escalate into WW3. The only other powers involved are Russia, who are totally hands tied with Ukraine if they like it or not and China is only interested keeping what's left in its sphere of influence later through their outreach initiatives. I suspect most Middle Eastern countries will be quite happy about this conflict as they have persistent problems with Iran as well from the Houthis, Hezbollah and tens of other factions. They won't want to say anything though in case their own citizens turn on them.
The cringeworthy thing is how the US gov are communicating this and that does the operation a lot of damage. It's really quite terrible. Sounds like it was written by a bunch of 9 year olds after too many sugary drinks. Urgh.
> The cringeworthy thing is how the US gov are communicating this and that does the operation a lot of damage. It's really quite terrible. Sounds like it was written by a bunch of 9 year olds after too many sugary drinks. Urgh.
Thats because its not written for you and I. Its written for people who struggle to communicate at an adult level, which is a shockingly large portion of the US.
"for you and me," not "for you and I." Would you write, "for I"?????
I've never figured out the rules for me vs. I as a native English speaker. Theyre interchange as far as my little pea brain is concerned.
I don't think that's the case. I think it's some of those people got elected.
They got elected because they communicated effectively with people in a way those people understood.
Trump speaks like a 4th grader and it is extremely effective.
I think “Make America Great Again” was effective because it means whatever the person hearing it wants it to mean, and there’s no obvious metric by which to measure its success.
The policies on the left tend to have a lot more nuance, which is much harder to fit on a hat.
More like this is a small piece of the puzzle in Russian-Ukraine war. Iran plays quite a big role in supplying Russians. If Iran is taken out, power balance in that war may change too.
I doubt either of them is keen to enter the fray here. Russia is making shaheeds at home now anyway
[flagged]
Uh, Iran is involved in the Ukraine war, and this even goes so far that Ukraine has attacked Iranian shipping in the Caspian sea.
https://www.lloydslist.com/LL1154545/Ukraine-strikes-cargosh...
(not just once)
So?
Iran's involvement in the Ukrainian conflict is mostly business-like, it didn't even send troops (unlike North Korea, for example).
I don't see these two conflicts merging to a WW3, if that is what you were implying.
Unless Russia gives some nukes to Iran, which again I somehow don't see happening.
> Unless Russia gives some nukes to Iran, which again I somehow don't see happening.
That's one thing that's scary about Iran. ayatollahs with nukes are unacceptable ... even in Putin's assessment.
Putin said it himself, there are over 2 million russians in Israel - they will not participate
Russian Speakers* a lot of them are from previous Soviet republics like Georgia, Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, Belarus and Ukraine
In Georgia, they speak Georgian. Azerbaijani is a Turkic language.
I don’t dispute that fact, but the Jews that have immigrated from there have grew up in the Soviet Union and in the Soviet education system, and therefore speak Russian
Additional context: the comment above me stated 2m people have emigrated from Russia to Israel it’s more correct to say that they have emigrated from the Soviet Union
thats definitely not the reason they wont participate. Its just a public excuse
I have to wonder how many are in governmental roles and realized they can steer the US into conflicts and ruining itself without any of those involved identifying as Russian. It's the cleanest backdoor for espionage that there ever was.
"russia controlling the us" is such a 2015 narrative, you ought to update your positioning..
The most likely and capable retaliation will be cyber/info wars.
Iran has sophisticated influence operations and will likely flood social media with disinformation designed to deepen political divisions and erode trust in institutions.
This advice serves even if you don’t believe the above. Be deeply skeptical of all viral content in the coming days and weeks, especially anything designed to change your opinions, or provoke outrage/fear. Verify before sharing. Expect deepfakes. Stick to primary sources when possible.
Nothing to do with nuclear weapons. They are trying to surround and isolate Turkey as the only other military heavyweight of the middle east.
Israel and the US have already shown their cards in Syria. It is not peace they are after, it is regional domination.
Interesting times intensifies. It's only February.
There are always unanticipated consequences in war. Argentina never thought in a million years that an attack on the practically undefended Falklands would result in the loss of the General Belgrano.
Remember when we bombed Iran at Fordow? It happened less than a year ago. Iran sent some perfunctory retaliation, and everyone forgot the whole affair. Same with this. Nothing ever happens.
idk about that, telling people to get ready for body bags does not sound like the hands-off fireworks show of previous episodes.
Given the amount of planes this isn’t going to be a single precision strike
[flagged]
Yeah bro no one voted for this.
Destroying alliances that took decades to build and then initiating multiple ill-advised military incursions is quite the play.
This is the beginning of 3rd world war.
What makes you think that?
Would you be willing to back up that claim with money on a prediction market?
It's very subjective, not appropriate for a prediction market.
Yup, up to those that write the history books.
Then it's also not a very useful claim to make on Hacker News.
I think I should refrain from commenting political posts, but this one has a possibility of being something major.
However, looking at how the US president has abused power, silenced those who are against the draft dodging crybaby and his league of human trafficking millionaires, I feel this is yet another try to move focus from US domestic probs to something else. I see no honesty or greater reason for this attack or justification for it. While I'm no fan of Iran's autocratic regime, US is slipping towards into being one, as well.
US president has now active war operations in Venezuela, soon lightning the Cuba situation on fire as well, not to forget planning to take Greenland and Canada, too.
That's honestly not bad for the president of peace. Nobel committee should take a look at nominating this guy for a peace prize
It will easily be a victory for him. He's smarter that non-maga give him credit for. Bomb Iran with overwhelming force & it will be a media victory. That doesn't mean that it's right or wrong or that there won't be consequences. But, in the short term it will be a political win. Democrats are already taking the bait and saying that they are outraged that the supreme leader was whacked w/out congressional approval.
Hopefully they finish the job this time and rid us of this horrible islamist regime, to make Iran great again !
Another mid east war entirely on Israel’s behalf, another war Americans will pay tax for, die for- just so Israel can keep grabbing few parcels of lands from Palestine.
this global escalation will be the reason elections are cancelled.
The president of peace btw.
I'm baffled at the lack of calls to boycott the Fifa world cup in US.
And at the double standards applied to Russians and Israelis in their wars of aggression.
I guess Israel can play the "October 7th" card at least which was an insane horror.
I don't want to insult you but your president is a populist and a TV personality. He is not a policy maker, he is more like an actor. So your country went into war mode by changing the name of the Department of Defence to Department of War. This was not a cosmetic change. This means peace times are over and you are in war. Your government acts accordingly.
Since you are still a democracy find those people who make your policy decisions. It's not that yellow man.
> find those people who make your policy decisions
Genuine question: who put Iran in their policy portfolio?
AIPAC is a thing...
And now of course you're going to label me an AIPAC nutter, but in this particular case I think the evidence is fairly plain given the collaboration between the two countries on this. If Israel had done this by their lonesome or if the US had not involved Israel then you could make the case that they reached this point independently, right now it looks to me as if collusion is a 100% certainty and that the US is executing a foreign policy that will not benefit it but that will benefit Israel. It also makes me wonder whether this will end up as a Venzuela re-run where the top names change but everything else remains the same, just with US companies the beneficiaries of the oil, which is, besides policy the main driver behind these things anyway.
[flagged]
Even CNN is reporting that this unprovoked attack was lined up with a Jewish holiday celebrating the killing of non-jews: https://x.com/chrisbrunet/status/2027665287982502195
The first thing the US/Israel did was murder 80+ children with an attack on a girl's elementary school (warning graphic): https://x.com/ME_Observer_/status/2027787999409266991
Meanwhile, jewish israelis are celebrating the attack in their bunkers: https://x.com/SZade15/status/2027695217286189363
The attack was reportedly timed for a surprise attack on Iranian leaders who happened to be in the same location at this time. They even attacked during the daytime for a risky surprise attack. To suggest the attack had anything to do with the holiday is beyond ridiculous. Also ridiculous to think they would intentionally attack a random school.
[flagged]
There is a lot of breaking news, much of it not verified. wrt bombing schools, people should be cautious about claims like this, this early.
There's lots of footage already, I just posted one link. You can see many dead children for yourself.
We should wait for more corroboration before we jump to conclusions about circumstance and attribution. In the Russia/Ukraine conflict, I've seen Russian's use footage and images from other conflicts to claim Ukraine is doing something underhanded.
We've already seen Israel do this over and over again in Gaza. We've seen Zionist media try to lie about it, but if you've been following what Israel has been doing for the past two years, you'll know that this is how they operate.
These days kinetic wars are accompanied by online information wars. What's the harm in waiting for corroboration and more evidence in a rapidly evolving situation?
You can follow the reporting here, and this is by western outlets that have proven to be unreliable when it comes to reporting about Israel: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=iran+school&t=brave&ia=news&iar=ne...
Those all cite Iranian government sources.
It's certainly credible that US/Israel bombed a school. But it's also credible that Iran would lie about US/Israel bombing a school. In these situations we need a higher standard of evidence than "credible". I don't think that's a radical position.
I find Iranian government sources far more credible than Zionist sources. Believe what you want, but this was an unprovoked act of aggression following two years of genocide and 75 years of ethnic cleansing. It's crystal clear who is responsible for all of the death and destruction.
You've been uncritically supportive of Israel in plenty of other threads on HN already so I'm not sure if your exaggeration of my comment should even be taken serious.
Israel has a massive lobbying effort in the United States and that's not exactly news, on top of that there have been many documented pieces of interaction between Trump and Nethanyahu that seem to be evidence that Trump is doing a lot of things to please Israel, besides that they are actively collaborating on these attacks.
[flagged]
> Are you a tankie or socialist?
FFS man.
As for stalking your account: if you don't want your comment history to be visible then don't participate on HN.
Well, we're certainly not collaborating with West Africa to bomb France. Not even the Philippines, Taiwan, and Uyghur and Hong Kong dissidents to bomb China.
I mean, it could just be the evangelicals hoping to start a holy war that heralds the End of Days. And now that I type that out, I have to agree with your implicit position that it's definitely the more rational catalyst.
[dead]
[flagged]
There is no comparison between Iran and Venezuela. Maduro had Cuban guards because his people seem to dislike him more than the US; his administration included. Also Maduro is hated by both neighboring countries elites and peasants. Situation couldn’t be more different in Iran, there are hundreds of thousands of committed supporters in Iran and Arabic countries (watch some videos where the Arabs celebrates the strikes at their own countries)
Also in power balance, Venezuela is a joke militarily. Iran has the capacity to end calm life in the GCC and possibly disrupt oil flows. Really an orange and apple comparison. Case in point today, Iran was able to project its missile to several countries in a couple hours.
> Iran has the capacity to end calm life in the GCC and possibly disrupt oil flows
I'm genuinely surprised the mines haven't rolled out, to the point that I believe they won't be. (They were–in the initial strikes–destroyed or incapacitated, or they never existed.)
> Iran was able to project its missile to several countries in a couple hours
To minimal effect. And every launch exposes a missile and firing team to American and Israeli jets flyig in uncontested airspace.
There is credible reporting (Reuters etc.) that ships are being turned around, so it does appear that the mines (or at least threat thereof) have been deployed. Either way, as long as the threat of sinking is alive the strait is uninsurable and is for all practical purposes closed.
> ships are being turned around, so it does appear that the mines (or at least threat thereof) have been deployed
I'd assume, until further evidence, it's because the Strait is an active war zone.
Fair point, but the IRGC telling ships to turn around, as opposed to the ships themselves doing it (as per reporting) would imply that the Strait has been blockaded in some fashion. It remains to be seen if this is all a bluff, I'm just as skeptical as this would be their last option, but given the strikes on other Gulf countries, the threat seems a bit more plausible of actually being real.
That regime has absolutely nothing to lose at this point and they will use whatever they've got.
Agreed that you can't compare Venezuela and Iran. But I challenge you to check which are the top three countries in the world by oil reserves.
Israel needs it, Trump wants it, this was going to happen either now or next year. The potential for escalation is massive and I sincerely hope that it will not. Iran is a problem, but Israel is also a problem and the United States is becoming a bigger problem every day. It would be nice if the people in charge of this planet could hold back from throwing matches into the powder kegs for a while.
Reserves are irrelevant, you can’t pump oil from the ground at a moment notice and building the infrastructure requires long-term stability especially for oil infrastructure which is large and hard to protect. Iran does x4 times the volume of Venezuela in oil and x10 in gas.
The issue with Iran is that it’s selling energy outside of the US system. This was less of an issue 20 years ago when the persians needed to funnel the money back to the Western system at a cost so that they can access world trade. The situation changed today as they can mostly survive on China imports and completely bypass the US financial system. Iran has half the exports (in total value!) of Tunisia at x8-9 the population. Something doesn’t add up.
> It would be nice if the people in charge of this planet could hold back from throwing matches into the powder kegs for a while
That’s not how the world works. The relative peace of the last 20 years or so was mostly because US hegemony was uncontested. This might be no longer the case. Someone in the far East will be watching for opportunities.
> Reserves are irrelevant, you can’t pump oil from the ground at a moment notice and building the infrastructure requires long-term stability especially for oil infrastructure which is large and hard to protect.
Who says these are rational actors. I think it is a bit much for coincidence.
> Iran does x4 times the volume of Venezuela in oil and x10 in gas.
Until yesterday. We'll see whether their infrastructure is going to survive this war.
> The issue with Iran is that it’s selling energy outside of the US system.
I'm well aware of that.
> This was less of an issue 20 years ago when the persians needed to funnel the money back to the Western system at a cost so that they can access world trade. The situation changed today as they can mostly survive on China imports and completely bypass the US financial system. Iran has half the exports (in total value!) of Tunisia at x8-9 the population. Something doesn’t add up.
What doesn't add up is that there are a lot of parties that would like to see regime change in Iran, including a lot of Iranians. The question always is whether the fire that you light remains contained or not and Iran is very much not like Venezuela in that sense.
> That’s not how the world works.
I'm well aware of that too. But that doesn't change how I feel about it.
> The relative peace of the last 20 years or so was mostly because US hegemony was uncontested. This might be no longer the case.
In no small part because of the idiot-in-charge.
> Someone in the far East will be watching for opportunities.
And that's precisely why I think there is a massive potential for escalation here.
> Until yesterday. We'll see whether their infrastructure is going to survive this war.
None of their energy infra. was hit and I don’t see it happening. Hitting their energy infra. will result in them hitting the GCC oil infra. This is more likely, in my opinion, part of the negotiations. They couldn’t agree to the terms of their power projection, so they went to the field to test it out.
> What doesn't add up is that there are a lot of parties that would like to see regime change in Iran, including a lot of Iranians.
You are buying into Western propaganda. Not that I know about the conditions on Iran and the Mullah popularity. It’s not possible to gauge that since freedom of information is limited there but I wouldn’t trust the latest campaign either. Only time will tell on this one.
> In no small part because of the idiot-in-charge.
This is where we disagree; though I could agree that the democrats will have handled this differently but not necessarily in a non-violent way.
> And that's precisely why I think there is a massive potential for escalation here.
I still think this one will pass. Though China will probably stick to its own deadlines when it’s ready on its own terms.
Make a genuine guess…
The current Israeli government obviously has a great deal of influence in the US government. That much is not conspiracy theory. The evangelicals involved in project 2025 have a very real interest in middle eastern conflict from an ideological standpoint. If you want a cynical follow the money villain look no farther than Al Saud and friends. Also, this weakens Russia and further restricts oil reaching China from anywhere. Every oil feed reaching China over water is at this point being curtailed. Looking for a single reason is very hollywood, enough interests aligned.
The US president hasn't required a new war resolution since Afghanistan. They each keep stretching it farther and farther. It cannot be rescinded without a veto-proof majority. If there was a veto proof majority willing to stand up to the executive, a conviction and removal would have already occurred.
The assertion that the US is a democracy is nisguided. It will be downgraded by vdem this month to an electoral autocracy. It is also worth noting that it only takes senators receiving the votes of <7% of the total population to filibuster all legislation, prevent overriding any vetos, and halt all impeachment trials. The fact it has looked like a democracy for so long is astounding.
> Looking for a single reason is very hollywood, enough interests aligned
Correct. But interests need to be animated to have power. Who was arguing that this should be a priority, and a priority now, who is familiar in the White House?
> The assertion that the US is a democracy is nisguided. It will be downgraded by vdem this month to an electoral autocracy
This is nonsense.
> halt all impeachment trials
False. Senate Rule 193 sets time limits on debate for impeachment trials [1].
[1] https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CDOC-117sdoc1/pdf/CDOC-1...
You seem to have a singular villain ready to point at. I do not see it. The president reportedly thinks whatever the last person to speak said. So are you proposing a mastermind or simply a catalyst?
As far as vdem goes, Lindberg has recently as much as confirmed they will down grade the us below democracy status.
> Lindberg has recently as much as confirmed they will down grade the us below democracy status
I mean, that's interesting from a political theoretical perspective. And if you want to put sacred meaning into it, sure. I'm not sure most people would take a decade-old Swedish institute as a harbinger of whether or not America is a demoracy too seriously (versus other sources, to be clear).
You are right that unless the eiu or others follow suit it would be less meaningful. On the senate conviction, my point is that only 33 senators need to oppose a conviction to stop it. Or to let a veto stand. The smallest states get the same number of senators. If those votes were evenly split, and it was the typical 50-60% turnout. It would actually only be 2-3% of the populace needed.
I do want to know who the bad guy is though.
> unless the eiu or others follow suit it would be less meaningful
Even if they do it's book reports.
> On the senate conviction, my point is that only 33 senators need to oppose a conviction to stop it
Yes. The bar is high for removing an elected executive. That's not a sign of not being a democracy.
We got too deep in the tree. Nixon could have gone a different way. Many of the senators that asked him to leave had constituencies that would have supported their refusal to convict. The 33 gop senators representing the smallest states only represent less than 20% of the population, and they usually win by less than 60% in elections with turnouts less than 60%. That is where I get the 90% from.
Even taking into account that not all small states are right leaning, and theoretically there could be 100% turnout, we are still talking about a situation wjere it takes over 90% agreement among the population to remove a president. That isn't a high bar, that is a complete lack of accountability. It isn't just removal. The whole system was designed by people so terrified of the tyranny of the majority that they neglected to forsee such uneven populations leading to the potential for a tyranny of the minority. The lack of any meaningful consensus for judiciary appointments is also a solid sign of competitive authoritarianism. But we are getting far off on a tangent. I really am intrigued that I'm missing some actor or faction. Will you get downvoted for the hypothesis? Or have you already replied with it and it got shadow blocked?
> wjere it takes over 90% agreement among the population to remove a president
...no? Majority of the House and two thirds of Senators doesn't require 90%. Nixon still had way more than 10% of support in the country when his removal from office was imminent.
> have you already replied with it and it got shadow blocked?
I don't think I've written anything that got shadow blocked for many years.
My best guess at who you mean is Netanyahu or Miller? I still think the SA benefits so greatly we should assume their advocacy.
[flagged]
I can certainly see potential positive outcomes as you say. Also, this stretches the original war powers resolution from Afghanistan a lot less than most US attacks. Iran does actually support terrorism across the globe. I do worry about implementation.
I was hoping someone serious (versus the everything is AIPAC nutters) had put thought into it.
Rubio and Walz have been Iran hawks. But I’m not yet convinced they were unilateral. Instead, it looks like a Rice-Powell alignment of vague interests with enough groupthink that dissenters weren't in the room.
[flagged]
> it literally is the AIPAC
AIPAC isn't a person. Who is the person who convinced the President to order these strikes? It could be someone at AIPAC. There is no evidence for that, I suspect, because it's highly unlikely.
Lindsey Graham and cronies. Tons of evidence, he travels to israel every month or so.
> Lindsey Graham and cronies
Lindsey Graham doesn't have that kind of pull in the White House. I'm not saying he didn't influence someone with it. But he isn't the power player.
I wouldn’t think so, but obviously things have changed significantly in the last few months.
> obviously things have changed significantly in the last few months
Not to the point that Graham makes such calls. (Hint: the person will be in the Situation Room with Trump.)
The "convincers" and those directing military operations are obviously different folks. I'd follow the money from Graham and Trump backward.
Oh, and by the way you don't have to quote single sentences from my responses when they consist of one or two sentences. ;-)
I see this as Trump going after governments that were close to Russia and China. Which is why he is going after Iran, Venezuela and Cuba.
Also there are many countries in the middle east that we are friends with which would be happy if Iran falls.
> ...would be happy if Iran falls.
Literally, perhaps true...at least initially. But:
- Take a look at how poorly the fall of the Iraqi gov't in 2003 actually worked out for the U.S. and its regional friends.
- Iran has 92 million people, very deep issues with being able to support that large a population, and very long borders. If things really went to crap there, it could produce tens of millions of desperate refugees.
> take a look at how poorly the fall of the Iraqi gov't in 2003 actually worked out
This is an immensely risky operation. But part of the reason for Iraq being a shitshow was De-Ba'athification. You don't need to clean house to effect regime change. My guess would be we're hoping someone in the IRGC disappears Khamenei and a few senior commanders and then makes a call to Geneva.
This is assuming a coherent national security strategy, which is unlikely. We know a lot of generals disagree with the attack on Iran, and none of the geopolitical experts I trust think it is a good idea, be they conservative, realist, liberal, leftist or something else.
There's a number of reasons this is happening now that I think are more plausible than American interest:
- Saudis want Iran weak as they are primary geopolitical rivals. There are deep ties between the Saudi dynasty and the Trump dynasty. Without Iranian support, the Houthis will have a much tougher time. (Although they should not be underestimated regardless. They are not an Iranian proxy, but an ally, and field one of the strongest armies in the whole region.)
- Israel wants Iran weak, and pro-zionism is a strong wedge in American politics. Again, there's also a lot of personal business interests involved. Iranian allies and proxies are the chief causes of grief for Israel's expansionist agenda, and a very credible threat to their national security.
- This war conveniently moves the headlines away from a faltering economy, the Epstein files, and ICE overreach. There's probably hope that it will improve chances with the 'war president bonus' in the mid-terms. It could also be a convenient cover for and excuse to increase rigging in the elections.
Expecting positive regime change after bombing a school full of little girls is... naive. This is not how you turn an enemy into a friend.
I know a lot of Americans who remember 1979 and don't care if they are ever friends again. I agree, I also don't think this is a coherent national security strategy.
The countries in middle east want Iran to be weak, not to fall.
I think that from the point of the neighbouring countries, Iran is fine as it is. Israel and the USA keep it in check, it is under sanctions, which are both beneficial for its adversaries.
If the regime in Iran were to fall, first of all you would have repercussions on the neighbors, (refugees and the like), and instability. But also, in the longer run, the chance of a more better government, which could make the country stronger than it is.
The rumor I heard was that high-level Pentagon generals had subtly suggested that Trump target Iran. The reason was to distract his attention from Greenland. Logic goes that if you have a reality TV star who built his brand on being a tough guy in the White House, it's far better that he attack a theocratic dictatorship that funds a host of terrorist organizations and whose country is already on the verge of collapse than a NATO ally and fellow democracy that didn't do anything to us.
He's been talking about Iran since 2011
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7s5pT3Rris
From where did you hear this rumor?
Was a news article from a reputable source (Reuters or PBS?), around the time of the Greenland flap in early January, but Google Search now sucks and the results are all polluted with news articles from the strikes today so I wasn't able to find it again.
The voters
Indeed, the permanent bureaucracies and think tanks have advised all administrations:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7864/j.ctt6wpgvg
This is bipartisan. The long term goals were to start with Libya, Iraq, Syria and then Iran. The latter two required Russia to be tied up in another conflict.
They don't explicitly put Iran in their portfolio because for Reality TV it is better to be a peace lover.
Now, undoubtedly the Democrats will pretend to complain, but Schumer and Pelosi want this, too.
[I am expanding on your comment, not trying to contradict anything.]
>I don't want to insult you but your president is a populist and a TV personality. He is not a policy maker, he is more like an actor.
All of them are, even those that haven't had a show on TV.
I'm not disagreeing with you but "Dept of War" is ENTIRELY a cosmetic change. It's literally just a name. There are people, mostly with desk jobs, who really want to feel like badasses and they really want the Dept of War. The real human consequences of this are unimportant to them and sadly unimportant to the rest of us also.
Cosmetic changes are frequently decisive in politics. "literally just a name" discounts the genuine power of names.
Agreed 100%
If you go to https://www.war.gov/ it says Department of War. The person in charge calls himself the Secretary of War. Warfighters are being sent into Iran. Presumably to engage in warfare. People are gonna die.
What's cosmetic about this?
Seems more accurate to me. Department of Defense was the one that seemed like a euphemism.
Agree, essentially the Department of War is the Department of Defense with a little less makeup.
It's cosmetic because it is business as usual.
And the DoW was the original name from 1789 to 1947.
Wasn’t it originally called the department of war also? If anything “department of defense” was doublespeak, as it was already primarily for war.
Indeed it was, from 1789 to 1947. It was then changed to Departments of Army and Air Force, later the National Military Establishment, and finally the Department of Defense in 1949.
Ukraine’s TV personality leader, Volodymyr Zelenskyy seems to be doing alright. Also went into war, but not of their own doing, and he has been measured, insightful, aware, throughout this whole war.
There’s more to it than Trump being a TV show personality. Far too complex and insidious than a simple quip.
I don't think the American people can change their country's policy oriented toward a constant state of war, aggression, and invasions of other countries under the current system. This is a constant state policy, regardless of the party or the president. So it can be said that the United States is not a democracy. Money and capital rule, not the people.This can only be changed by a fundamental shift that empowers people over capital.
Of course, I agree that Trump is worse because, by removing the mask of civility and attacking others without first bothering to create propaganda and a narrative about how it is for the greater good and justice, he made the plundering and crimes faster and more efficient.
> don't think the American people can change their country's policy oriented toward a constant state of war, aggression, and invasions of other countries under the current system
Of course we can. People disagreeing with you doesn't mean they don't exist.
These are the Senate seats in play this cycle [1]. How many of those do you think would be flipped based on any foreign policy item?
If you're on this thread you pay attention to foreign policy. The notion that someone doesn't–not isn't informed, but literally doesn't to any degree–is almost more foreign than the strangest countries we read about. But the truth is most Americans have never ranked any foreign policy item as being in their top three issues since the Vietnam War.
We could change it if we wanted to. We don't because it's not personally pertinent or worse, it's boring. (And, I'd argue, because a lot of foreign-policy oriented activists are preaching for the choir versus trying to actually effect change.)
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_United_States_Senate_elec...
Americans ranked foreign policy as the third most relevant issue for them in 2016, tied with immigration. [1] It's disingenuous to ignore that both parties have traditionally had mostly the same foreign policy stance. So you're voting for forever war, or forever war. How can it be a deciding factor for voters in this context?
But 2016 was different because Trump was the first candidate in some time to run on something even vaguely flirting with being anti-war, as he actively called out the endless wars of the political establishment, and argued that America first should not involve us wasting our money bombing countries half-way around the world. It was a relatively weak position but even that was enough to get 13% of voters to declare foreign policy as their key issue, tied with immigration. And Trump ended up winning their vote by an 18 point margin.
Anti-war is one of the relatively large number of issues that Americans largely agree on, but the political establishment makes it impossible to vote for, because you'll never find a mainstream candidate running on a platform that aligns with public interest. So for instance 84% of Americans think that "the American military should be used only as a last resort", that Congressional approval should be required for military action, and so on. [2]
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidentia...
[2] - https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/new-poll-shows-pub...
> 84% of Americans think that "the American military should be used only as a last resort", that Congressional approval should be required for military action, and so on
In general, yes. What fraction of Trump voters do you think would agree that Trump should face any consequences for bypassing the Congress?
Or Obama's, or Bush's, or Clinton's? By the time somebody is in office and engaging in a pro-war platform, his supporters will look the other way. Even moreso in modern American politics where people are often no longer even voting for people they like, but for people they loathe less than the alternative. It's why electoral choice, which is largely absent in America, is so critical for the functioning of a healthy system.
That's assuming the people don't vote for this because they want this.
Many Americans have a hero complex. Their national mythology post World War II includes them being the "good guys" against the "bad guys." That mythology needs a bad guy.
Trump ran on "no wars" because he was going to spend all his focus on America instead of burning taxpayer money dropping bombs overseas. I'm sure some people voted for him at least in part for that reason. You can argue that they should have known he was liar, but there is support for it. Also, with the new concentration camps, the soldiers in our streets, and the nazi salutes I'm not sure the whole "good guys" against the "bad guys" narrative is something trump voters care about at all. They seem pretty comfortable playing the "bad guys" part anyway.
They believe they are the good guys.
But then, history shows this sort always do.
The moment they made that name change and stated their expansionist agenda it finally became clear to me that this wasn't just MAGA anymore, this was actual fascism.
Whether you think the current targets are legitimate or not, the fact that the U.S. is going to war without seeking any democratic approval anymore is deeply troubling.
> The moment they made that name change and stated their expansionist agenda it finally became clear to me that this wasn't just MAGA anymore, this was actual fascism.
I'm pretty sure MAGA was always fascism. I mean, all the signs were there and people were sounding alarm bells almost immediately.
I an opposed to Trump's unhinged offensive, but let's not fall prey to media narrative. Nobody called similar actions "fascism" before (or they did, as the word is thrown around casually in the US, but then nothing has changed). Similarly, when Obama vastly expanded deportations and the like, nobody cared.
I don't like Trump. At all. I think he's a terrible president on the whole and a shameless opportunist. But I don't like one-sided politics and hypocrisy even more so, and I dislike hysteria. History and long term trends paint us a different picture of current events. Most people's horizons are limited to the shallow, tendentious, cherry-picked, and sensationalist news cycle, unfortunately, regardless of outlet. Should we criticize Trump? Yes. But we should criticize all leadership when they do what they should not be doing.
BTW, the Dept. of War was the original name from 1789 to 1947. Curiously, it was soon after the change to Dept. of Defense that people like Eisenhower began to worry about the Military-Industrial Complex. That should give us pause. The name change conceals the intention, and coincides with a hungry imperial war machine that WWII helped bring into existence. Recall that Americans were largely isolationist before that.
This is clearly not fascism, and not very different from what the US is accustomed to. Let's not waste the meaning of words by throwing them at any occasion.
What do you think fascism is? What we have is a populist, nationalist, racist, far-right regime headed by a man that our highest court has ruled can't be held accountable for his "official" actions and who acts like a dictator (as further evidenced in this case by going to war without congress) who uses to the power of the government to attack/threaten/suppress his "enemies" here in the US. If this isn't textbook fascism you must admit that it at least checks a lot of the same boxes
Well this is not fascism, this is, as you said, a populist regime.
The far left loves to categorize everything at its right as "fascist". The infamous Berlin wall was the "antifascist protection wall". In Yugoslavia, you'd hear every day at the radio a rant about the "fascists", even though the country was communist.
There are many definitions of what "fascism" is. The best I think is to refer to the historical italian fascist government, to understand it.
Btw presidential immunity is not fascist, many countries have similar laws.
> The best I think is to refer to the historical italian fascist government, to understand it.
Sure, why don't we:
- leader with a cult of personality
- an idealized story of the prosperous past (make america great again)
- pinning blame for the nation's downfall on marginalized minorities and persecuting them (immigrants, socialists)
- aggressively anti-socialist/leftist, protection of capital and suppression of labor rights
- glorification of violence (ICE, hate crimes, "department of war")
- ramping up existing and starting new imperialistic conflicts (Venezuela, Cuba, now Iran)
- rolling back personal liberties (freedom of speech, right to due process, women's rights)
- suppression of the free press given unfavorable reporting (revocation of TV licenses, revocation of access to white house)
- clear desire with ongoing attempts to dismantle democracy (capitol attack, violating separation of powers by illegally withholding funding for programs and violating court orders)
- demands complete subservience rather than competence in all appointed roles
- all of this with full support of the elites (clear shift in the 2nd term)
If you want to argue that the US isn't fascist because Trump hasn't completely dismantled the judicial branch yet, be my guest.
But fascism isn't just a concrete political system where a dictator has absolute power, it's an ideology, and Trump and the Republican party are clearly fascist in that sense - that is their goal. It's just a question of whether they'll succeed in dismantling the judicial branch before his term is over.
The only people who benefit from this sort of language policing are the fascists themselves.
P.S. I probably shouldn't be saying this but the fact that you refer to people sounding the alarm as "the far left" really gives the game away.
Each point, aside from the cult of personality regarding Trump, is shallow.
For instance, the US didn't start a war against Venezuela or Cuba under Trump. America was much more aggressive in the 80´s, if you want to compare.
Immigration can totally be a problem, and voters in the western world increasingly ask their leaders to address it. It's not "democracy" when it suits your ideas and "fascism" when it doesn't.
Opposing socialism isn't "fascist" and afaik the Trump admin has done nothing significant about it: social expenses and the deficit are still growing faster than ever. What is mainly happening is that ressources are being redirected toward the retired, who are influencial voters and a growing demographic. It's the same everywhere in the western world.
Again, all of those measures are very superficial and nothing like what real fascism did in Italy or what Nazis did when they came to power. You can't reason just with outrage and headlines.
By the way, most of those points have their Democrat counterpart with a different style, it's mainly linked to the evolution of the governance style in the US. Democrats also had their DEI unsuited hires, censorships (Meta was censoring on the order of the White House), and so on.
> Immigration can totally be a problem, and voters in the western world increasingly ask their leaders to address it.
Stop equivocating. I didn't say that opposing immigration = fascism, I said that identifying marginalized groups, pinning all of the nation's problems on those groups and then persecuting, victimizing, terrorizing anyone who looks like they belong to one of those groups - that is fascist.
> Opposing socialism isn't "fascist"
Again, stop equivocating. I didn't say that opposing socialism is fascist, I said "aggressively anti-socialist", as in, violent anti-socialist rhetoric. Similar to the previous point.
> afaik the Trump admin has done nothing significant about it
That's wholly detached from reality. The only reason he hasn't dismantled all of the social programs yet is because the courts have stepped in and intervened when he tried. See: USAID, withholding SNAP funding, Medicaid, the whole DOGE disaster.
> Again, all of those measures are very superficial and nothing like what real fascism did in Italy or what Nazis did when they came to power. You can't reason just with outrage and headlines.
Those are the core qualities of fascism. I get it, you don't like being called a fascist so you sea-lion about the differences to distract from the overwhelming similarities.
Even when Trump dismantles the judicial branch, people like you will maintain that the US isn't fascist because people aren't speaking Italian like they did in fascist Italy, or German like they did in nazi Germany.
I feel comfortable saying this because we're not just disagreeing on whether the US is fascist right now and there's still room to have argue there, but we're disagreeing on whether Trump has a fascist agenda and whether he's actively working to transform the US into a totalitarian regime following the fascist playbook, which he absolutely is.
I'm not American, I'm not even Trumpist so your ad-hominem falls flat. I however live in a country where the soviet propaganda was crying "fascism" every single day of the year, for 60 years, so when I see people do the same I tend to be skeptical about it.
I still don't understand why "aggressively anti-socialist" policies are fascist. Fascism is itself a branch of socialism (Mussolini was one, in France the fascist leader Jacques Doriot was one as well, for instance). Being a totalitarism, it aims at engulfing every aspect of the daily life, which means supporting socialist policies (similar to communism, another totalitarism).
Authoritarian regimes in the 30´s that were "aggressively anti-socialist" weren't fascist. Franco or Salazar are relevant examples, even thought today they would be categorized as such, since you guys seem now to have only single word left to designate populist or authoritarian regimes then don't like.
Trump lacks deeply indeed the socialist aspect of fascism; it would likely be better defined as plutocratic cesarism, even though he did not make a coup (yet).
> I'm not American, I'm not even Trumpist so your ad-hominem falls flat.
You don't have to be American to be a fascist-sympathizer, which you clearly are, since you label opposition to totalitarian methods as "the far left", lie about matters of fact, and grossly misrepresent the events that happened in fascist Italy while trying to represent yourself as someone intimately familiar with the matter.
For example:
> Fascism is itself a branch of socialism (Mussolini was one)
> Authoritarian regimes in the 30´s that were "aggressively anti-socialist" weren't fascist.
> Trump lacks deeply indeed the socialist aspect of fascism
Fascism is not a branch of socialism, fascism frames socialists as enemies of the state and pledges to destroy socialism. Mussolini was clearly not a socialist ideologically, as he had them killed. That was the entire MO of the blackshirts.
> since you guys seem now to have only single word left to designate populist or authoritarian regimes then don't like.
No, we're just using the word appropriately and you hate it. You'd rather lie and make up a story about fascism being a branch of socialism than admit that Trump is a fascist.
> Fascism is not a branch of socialism
You should read more about this, the creator of the fascist doctrine stated plainly that fascism was socialism with nationalist characteristics.[0]
Socialism and fascism share many similarities, given that they developed in the same context with the same roots : youth movements, focus on controlling education, citizen's health seen as a responsibility of the State, strong management of the economy, and so on. Both tend to classify political ennemies as a single group ("communists" in the case of fascists, "fascists" in the case of socialists), without distinction, just like what you are doing.
The fact that Black Shirts (which don't have a Trumpian equivalent) didn't like the other socialists doesn't make fascism less socialist, just like the soviet campaign against Trotskists doesn't mean that the USSR was less communist.
> we're just using the word appropriately
Rubio just admitted that the US participated in the strikes against Iran to please Israel. There is nothing fascist about this, and again plutocracy is a much more efficient explanation for the current regime actions. Saying that something isn't fascist doesn't make me a fascist.
"If you are not with me, you're against me" type of thinking... where did I see this historically?
[0] https://fee.org/articles/theres-no-denying-the-socialist-roo...
[dead]
[dead]
> Let's not waste the meaning of words by throwing them at any occasion.
Honest question, but if this is not fascism, then what is? Aren't you also wasting the meaning of a word by refusing to acknowledge any application of that word?
There isn't a single accepted definition of what fascism is. The USSR and their left-wing allies in Western Europe would define everything that wasn't communist as “fascist”. It still continues to this day.
I'd suggest you read about fascist Italy to get a sense of what fascism is. So far I haven't seen Democrats repeatedly kicked out of cars in Times Square after drinking a bottle of castor oil. Trump said that he wouldn't look to be reelected for a third mandate.
The Iran war is mainly a consequence of the Israeli influence on US politics; it has nothing to do with fascism, and it is in continuity with the previous administration.
So yeah, populism likely, a plutocracy (evidenced by the role of AIPAC in elections) but not fascism.
> I'd suggest you read about fascist Italy to get a sense of what fascism is. So far I haven't seen Democrats repeatedly kicked out of cars in Times Square after drinking a bottle of castor oil.
January 6th had all the hallmarks of the black shirts marching on Rome. And ICE is definitely pulling people out of cars and homes in Democratic cities. But I guess everything is fine because they're not making them drink castor oil.
Immigration enforcement is necessary, but these actions clearly have less to do with people's immigration status and more to do with political reprisal.
> Trump said that he wouldn't look to be reelected for a third mandate.
They'll always say they'll follow the Constitution to legitimize themselves, but their actions don't reflect it.
> The Iran war is mainly a consequence of the Israeli influence on US politics; it has nothing to do with fascism, and it is in continuity with the previous administration.
It has everything to do with fascism, not because of its motivation, but it's lack of democratic approval. This administration has a clear disdain for the democratic process.
I sincerely hope there was some secret vote by Congress that we don't know about.
> So yeah, populism likely, a plutocracy (evidenced by the role of AIPAC in elections) but not fascism.
I would've agreed with you if we were talking about Trump's first term, that was clearly just populism. This second term goes far beyond what any populist leader has done in Europe.
> January 6th
Trump has no structured paramilitary militias like the Squadras or the SA. The January 6th was mainly a crowd movement, participants were a heteroclite bunch with very different political ideas.
> ICE
ICE is a state agency, which existed before and has never been known for its benevolent and non-violent actions. The problems mainly arise from the overhiring, lack of training, and braindead managers. By the way, many members agency are not white, which contradicts the racism narrative. Alex Pretti was shot by two latino officers, for instance.
> lack of democratic approval
Lack of democratic approval for a war isn't facism. It's a strong presidential regime. France has the same and is not fascist. And it's legal in the current form[0].
> farther than any populist leader
Politics aren't a 1d political spectrum were the ends are facism. Afaik declaring a war to satisfy the billionaires of another nation is clearly not fascism, nor even nationalist in the strict sense.
Words are important because if you earnestly want the situation to change, you need to assess it clearly. The Trump presidency has a more to do with the influence of money in US politics, and the media system which favors outrage and "loud" candidates. Democrats also commited a historical blunder with the botched Biden candidacy and the lack of a credible replacement (Kamala was clearly not convincing from the early start).
[0] https://time.com/7380309/iran-war-legal-trump/?utm_source=ch...
> Trump has no structured paramilitary militias like the Squadras or the SA. The January 6th was mainly a crowd movement, participants were a heteroclite bunch with very different political ideas.
The black shirts were no different.
> ICE is a state agency, which existed before and has never been known for its benevolent and non-violent actions.
Much of the prosecution of minorities in fascist regimes was not done by the militias, it was done by law enforcement.
> Lack of democratic approval for a war isn't facism. It's a strong presidential regime. France has the same and is not fascist. And it's legal in the current form[0].
A hallmark of fascism is the refusal to acknowledge any democratic limitations on the power of the leader. The article you reference states clearly that he has no legal authority to start the war, as he would need congressional approval.
France has the same system as the U.S., only parliament has the power to start a war.[0]
> Words are important because if you earnestly want the situation to change, you need to assess it clearly.
I'm glad we agree on that. I will concede that Trump may never become a true dictator, but the ideology is clearly there and if his power is not checked I worry about who will succeed him.
> The Trump presidency has a more to do with the influence of money in US politics
Fascists regimes have historically been well-funded by money in politics.
[0] https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?a...
> The black shirts were no different.
You can alternatively read the wikipedia article about squadrism and see that there is nothing in common between the people that did Jan 6th and squadrists, which were a highly organized and violent paramilitary force.
> Much of the prosecution of minorities
There are many latinos in ICE - the Axel Pretti murderers were latino agents. All of this rethoric about ideology hardly matches reality, which is more likely a chain of incompetent people mismanadging the situation.
> illegal war
Article states that "Under the War Powers Resolution, which dates back to the 1970s, if a president enters the military into hostilities without congressional authorization, the operation must end within 60 days unless Congress expressly authorizes it.". Trump is within this framework, similar to the previous strikes on the enrichment plants.
> Succession
As usual with this kind of cesarism, it is tied to an individual and will deflate after Trump's mandate. Since they didn't cancel elections (like a true fascist would do, by the way, as it is not a democratic ideology), it may end up this year when they'll lose the congress.
> money
Fascist regimes had rich donors, but it was for ideological reasons first - Henry Ford's support of the nazi party comes to mind. The current donors such as Miriam Adelson or the tech bros fund him to steer the policy towards their interest, or just pure corruption, as we saw with CZ (Binance). I mean look at it, 13 members of the government are billionaires. This is a classic case of plutocracy - rich people's government. Caesar was also a plutocrat, which fits well with Trump.
> Since they didn't cancel elections
There's still time for that, but canceling elections would make it too obvious, then even people like you would realize what is happening. That's why these days autocrats prefer to simply subvert the electoral system. That way people who prefer to look away can simply continue to pretend everything is above board.
Are you claiming Harris or Biden would have bombed Iran like this? That does not sound credible, but if the other party wouldn’t have attached Iran then this is not business as usual, it’s the GOP as usual.
Maybe not exactly but Dems have started many wars, often to look tough due to the perception of them being weaker.
Biden and Harris didn't have any problems shipping tons of bombs to Israel, aimed at being exploded on dense civilian zones so I don't think that there is are dramatic differences between the two parties.
The dramatic difference is that Biden had Congressional approval to ship weapons to Israel and Ukraine.
Trump doesn't need congressional approval to launch operations shorter than 60 days, per the War Powers act, a law introduced by Democrats, by the way.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution
This isn't a simple operation, killing a foreign head of state is about as clear of a declaration of war as you can imagine. The law was introduced to put a check on the president's use of military force, it didn't give the president the power to declare war on another country.
from 2024:
"Harris to Jewish voters: ‘All options on the table’ to stop Iran from going nuclear In pre-election High Holidays call, US vice president says diplomatic solution still preferable to keep Islamic Republic from the bomb, charges Trump won’t stand by Israel"
https://www.timesofisrael.com/harris-to-jewish-voters-all-op...
But the Iranian regime isn’t at all fascist, right?
The existence of fascism elsewhere doesn't excuse its existence here.
I'm not American.
The Trump admin would sooner drop nukes on LA then cede a fair election.
An honest discussion about this cannot be had on this site, it's kinda funny how pointless all the comments are here. Yours is the closest anyone is allowed to get and I wonder if yours will stay up.
The guy’s in the World Wrestling Entertainment Hall of Fame. He’s been seeking or serving in office for over ten years. We all know. It’s old ground.
No I'm talking about who is responsible for all of this. You're allowed to misunderstand (as you did here), you're allowed to downvote (as they do to me), you're allowed to lie, and allowed to be mistaken. But truth is nowhere to be found on Hacker News on this subject. There can be a million comments. All of them varying degrees of wrong or closer to the money and then removed.
It is funny that the AIPAC influence narrative is allowed now, but think tank papers are greyed out and will disappear soon. So I guess "blame Bibi" is one of the desired narratives now.
Ukraine is a democracy with a legitimate leadership that was not planning to acquire nukes and has no history of planning to remove Russia from the map. To suggest that this attack on Iran is the same as the Russian invasion of Ukraine is very misguided.
Ukraine got rid of nukes and it was massive collosal mistake. In alternative universe where they win and get territory back and get economy on track, they would be 100% warranted to get the nukes.
My point is, Ukraine war and the way it evolved shows that not having nukes is a bad position.
> Ukraine got rid of nukes and it was massive collosal mistake.
They couldn't operate them, all electronics were in Moscow anyway, nor afford to maintain them or even guard them.
At the very same time Ukraine's corrupted military sold out on the black market tens of billions of weaponry.
In your alternate universe, bad actors acquire and reverse engineer those nuclear weapons resulting in a world that's much more dangerous.
No it would not be more dangerous then current. Lets not pretend Russia is mot more currupt then Ukraine used to be. I dont particularly care whether it is Russia selling them, Ukraine or USA.
Ukraine would be better off keeping them and all of us would be safer.
Because as of now, bad actors (Russia, USA, China) have nukes. Ukraine does not and that is making Russia expand. Meanwhile USA is run entirely but bad actors.
> My point is, Ukraine war and the way it evolved shows that not having nukes is a bad position.
Israel (allegedly? idk) has nukes. Did it stop October 7th? Did it stop Iran from firing ballistic missiles?
The war of today is not an open war (the war in Ukraine did not start on February 24 2022, but in 2014) where nuclear deterrence matters. Nuke will never help if the war is waged through proxies.
To be fair, nuking a piece of land that you claim you own and is also just a few miles away and downwind of your own citizens is a fairly difficult thing to do. Nukes are a great deterrent when it's a place at least 100 miles from your borders, and better if even farther. They're useless in your own backyard.
That's probably not the main reason.
Citing:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47157393
> I've spoken with engineers who worked on nuclear weapons systems, the consensus is that the public is deeply misinformed about how they work, the dangers, and the implications of weapons being used. (...)
> The biggest danger of a nuclear weapon is being hit by flying debris.
> Fusion airburst bombs of the modern era are incredibly clean and radiation is only a risk in a very small area (tens of miles) for a short time (days to weeks). (...)
Your own quotes contradict you. Gaza isn't even 10 miles wide. If nukes are safe from over 10s of miles away, then nuking Gaza would without a doubt endanger Israel since there's no place they could irradiate that would be sufficiently far from them.
Plus if Israel thinks it's fine to use them, then countries that don't like Israel will be glad to get that approval to go ahead with using their own
> Plus if Israel thinks it's fine to use them, then countries that don't like Israel will be glad to get that approval to go ahead with using their own
Now you're getting closer to the real reason ...
Ukraine never had operational control of the missiles in its territory
I am sure Ukrainians who built said nukes wouldn't have much problems figuring it out and building own nuclear program.
Instead believing in bright and peaceful future USA, France and UK promised. As Ukrainian who lived in Ukraine in 90s that felt like being on a frontier of the modern world, giving up the nukes. Oh, how full of hope we were.
By now the nukes would have been useless. You need to have a continuous ballistic and nuclear program to manufacture new nukes and missiles as the old ones become stale.
I think Ukraine would have no problem maintaining it's own nuclear program from purely technical perspective, considering they have a number of nuclear plants and expertise. Plutonium is a byproduct of a nuclear plant, they wouldn't even have to bother with uranium enrichment.
Presumably if you kept your nukes you’d built that capacity
That takes money. Ukraine was very poor in 1993. It's even poorer now.
What an awful take devoid of context. Russia literally defaulted in 1998, and 'somehow' kept the nukes.
And today Ukraine is doing quite amazing, considering 12 years of war. I can only dream what it would be if russians didn't steal a generation. Giving up nukes was a giant mistake.
Back then, giving up on nukes never was about compromising security. In 1993, I remember being full of hope and opportunity to live in peaceful world with less nukes. It felt like we had our backs by France, UK and USA. That was a move full of betrayed optimism, not desperation - giving up third world arsenal because the future is bright.
You also need to maintain vectors, at least functioning ICBMs, which cost quite dearly. And Russia had much more ressources than Ukraine at the time, by the way.
Ukraine absolutely had fleet of functioning ICBMs and strategic bombers. Unlike russia, Ukraine didn't declare bankruptcy.
And pretty sure people who built those ICBMs and strategic bombers would have no issue maintaining them.
USA didn't pressure Ukraine into giving up nukes, at the same time bankrolling russian nuclear program for 'security' reasons.
Ukraine didn't declare bankruptcy because Russia chose to assume 100% of the USSR external debt. Meanwhile, in 1998, Russia had a GDP PPP 80% higher than Ukraine.
This is why usa had to bankroll russki nuclear security program?
It was a non-proliferation issue, I believe? The same could have been said about the pressure for Ukrainians to renounce the nukes. I agree that in retrospect Ukraine would have been safer with nuclear weapons.
However, a lot could have happened in two decades, and Ukraine had to go through many issues typical of post-Soviet countries at the time. The risk associated with warheads being sold by generals or oligarchs was seen as a real one, see for instance:
https://www.armscontrol.org/act/1997-09/press-releases/russi...
Iran has been "a week away" from acquiring nukes since Netanyahu first claimed it in the 90s.
Not six months ago, Trump launched a strike that "completely obliterated" Iran's ability to obtain nukes. And then, either because he has the memory of a goldfish, or thinks that we do (both are somewhat true), he pulled out "a week away", again, at the SOTU. "We must attack Iran to destroy what I told you we destroyed last year."
Iran may be planning to do so. But this is just a boogeyman being used (again) by Israel and the US.
It's not the same as all, whatever you think of the Ukraine, it used to be part of the Soviet Union. Russia and the Ukraine fighting is a "normal" war. The US has absolutely no business attacking Iran. It's entirely unprovoked and at the behest of the terrorist "nation" of Israel, which also should have nothing to do with the US.
> The US has absolutely no business attacking Iran.
Iran's theocratic regime just murdered tens of thousands of protestors, regularly organizes chants of "Death to America", calls the US "The Great Satan", sponsors terror organizations all around the region, has (through their Houthi proxies) cut off critical sea lanes in one of the most strategic areas, is very close to developing nuclear weapons (with enough HEU already to build maybe a dozen bombs), has extensive ballistic missile magazines and expertise, and is working on ICBMs explicitly to reach the US homeland.
But oh yeah, this is totally unprovoked and the US has no business attacking Iran. Right.
It's amazing to see the justification done by some people to attack other sovereign countries. Did not america learn from the fake WMD fiasco with Iraq?
> fake WMD fiasco
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/iran-stored-highly...
I seem to have missed the IAEA report on Iraq's 400+ kilos of HEU.>> *if enriched further*
Keyword there. They said they were not pursuing weapon enrichment.
Let's also not pretend that the US and israel care about international law, after all, there are arrest warrants by the ICC against israeli officials.
60% is very close to 93%; see my comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47198239
> They said they were not pursuing weapon enrichment.
There is literally no other reason for Iran to enrich to 60% U235 than for weapons.
https://youtu.be/MG93nnyxY1g?t=457
Jm2c but I wonder how people can be surprised that Iran wanted to build a nuclear weapon, especially after the US under Trump's first presidency pulled out the nuclear deal struck under Obama and cornered Iran even more.
Like do people in US realize that countries around the world take notes about what happened to the Libyas and Iraqs and many others (like Colombia recently) and see that the US will attack other countries with impunity.
Who cares what the mullahs want?
The US feels threatened by Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile programs and has the military force to stop them, probably. Diplomatic avenues bore no fruit. Military force is now being used to--hopefully--end the threat definitively.
Yes, of course we are aware of what happened to Ghaddafi. It's very en vogue to point out the game theoretical incentives to develop nuclear weapons.
But seemingly people never bring up South Africa's disarmament. And nobody ever mentions that game theory also incentivizes the US prevent their adversaries from developing nuclear weapons where possible.
Giving up or stopping development of nukes may invite attack. Refusing to stop developing them may also invite attack.
[flagged]
> There's absolutely no proof that happened.
Pathetic.
What I said is factual. We're already seeing pictures of murdered children coming out of Iran, just like we did with Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon... Not a single shred of evidence has been produced to back the claim that Iran murdered anyone, let alone tens of thousands of people.
What you said is a pathetic lie. The regime itself claims they killed over 3000.
https://apnews.com/article/iran-protests-memorials-chehelom-... https://apnews.com/article/iran-protests-crackdown-hospitals... https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2026/02/20/how-man... https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c62v248xkl5o
Honestly I don't even know why I bother. You're not debating in good faith.
I'll save everyone the clicks: there's no evidence of Iran claiming they killed over 3000 people in any of these articles. There's a claim they said this, but as with all reporting about Iran, no proof. Also, 3000 is not "tens of thousands".
It looks like you saved yourself the clicks.
"The Human Rights Activists News Agency says it confirmed more than 7,000 deaths and that it is investigating thousands more. The government has acknowledged more than 3,000 killed, though it has undercounted or not reported fatalities from past unrest." - https://apnews.com/article/iran-campus-protests-crackdown-54...
'"I would put the minimum estimates to be 5,000 plus," Mai Soto, the United Nations’ special rapporteur on Iran, said in an interview with ABC Australia. Soto noted 5,000 dead is a "conservative" or "the minimum" estimate. Other credible estimates, she said, indicate as many as 20,000.' - https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2026/02/20/how-man...
> as with all reporting about Iran, no proof.
In the same way there's no proof humans ever walked on the moon, I suppose.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Rights_Activists_in_Iran
> the organization is based in Fairfax, Virginia, United States
It's constant deflection with you people. You can never actually address the facts head on; just deflect with "there's no evidence", pivot to "there's no proof", then cast aspersions on the most disagreeable messenger.
You have previously intimated that you are also in the United States. Should I dismiss your arguments because you're allegedly based in the US, too?
You forgot the genocide they have going and the current attempt to starve Cuba into submission with their little "blockade"
[flagged]
50% as in the barely armed males that were killed like fish in a barrel
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/langlo/article/PIIS2214-1...
> Women, children (ie, younger than 18 years), and older people (ie, older than 64 years) comprised 56·2% (95% CI 50·4–61·9) of violent deaths
How many of those people under 18 are boys over 15?
Militias rarely have age restrictions.
Which still doesn't justify the slaughter or starvation of children
I didn't say it did. I just think it's either naive or disengenuous to assume under 18 isn't a militant.
To a lesser extent, the same is true of women and elderly.
I am not sure what is the point you are trying to make with these stats.
It is clear that if half of the killed were militants, the other half is not by definition.
50% of casualties being civilians does not mean it is a genocide.
if you slaughter civilians and label all males as combatants you conveniently get a near 50% militant death rate
don't play dumb, there's a reason israel is not letting foreign media into gaza and slaughtering local journalists at a rate never seen in history of war
> if you slaughter civilians and label all males as combatants you conveniently get a near 50% militant death rate
Say the ratio is 1:4, then what?
> don't play dumb, there's a reason israel is not letting foreign media into gaza and slaughtering local journalists at a rate never seen in history of war
And, at the same time, they keep all the internet links alive so that Palestinians can show the whole world the "genocide"? Like, do you really think that Israelis are that dumb? Islamic Republic shut down the internet to hide the scope of butchery, but Israelis did not figure it out?
yes poor israel with it's nukes and iron dome is being oppressed by a bunch of women and children living in an open prison
now please tell me what you'd like to see happen with the remaining palestinians and what you expect to happen in the middle east after you destabilize another major country in the region
> yes poor israel with it's nukes and iron dome is being oppressed by a bunch of women and children living in an open prison
This is "open prison": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYCWjYBsr8M?
Truly oppressed people do not blow up themselves in cafes, busses, and schools. People in Iran are oppressed, their women are beaten for not covering their hair in the street, and yet, they do not blow up themselves.
answer my questions
also heres some nice footage of markets in warsaw ghetto for you https://youtu.be/a2a5qRkOqP4?si=twZ9zFYL3xh6Ms0h
as a Pole its sad to see so many jews get behind a fascist like Bibi. living in NYC i don't feel safer today and i don't see how the whole world turning on israel is good for jews long term
Trump shredding NATO and taking our random world leaders is also not making countries like Poland safer
> answer my questions
Which ones?
You provided a 50:50 stats without any sort of reasoning or an argument. I asked what does it mean, and you completely ignored my question, but mentioned that Gaza is an open prison (which is not, as Palestinians can leave and come back, as many did pre-2023 war), and somehow said that if people are “oppressed”, it is okay for them to commit atrocities.
Now, I would expect that you as a Pole would be able to tell the difference between Warsaw ghetto and Gaza. I wonder why you choose this false equivalence: Jews did not attack Germany from Warsaw Ghetto, they did not launch rockets, kidnapped German civilians and kept them in captivity, jews could not leave.
> as a Pole its sad to see so many jews get behind a fascist like Bibi. living in NYC i don't feel safer today and i don't see how the whole world turning on israel is good for jews long term
And this is the fault of the jews, right? And not the people who make jews not safe?
They're engaged in willful destruction of hospitals, they kill journalists on purpose, they have systematically blocked aid. Their friend minister recently declared an intent to eliminate all Palestinian territory.
You're just lying.
> They're engaged in willful destruction of hospitals
If a civilian facility is used for military purposes it is a legitimate target. Ukranians also bomb schools and hospitals. Are Ukranians commit genocide?
If a hospital is never be attacked, what prevents militaries simply use hospitals as military bases? It's like the ultimate "get out of jail" free card.
> they kill journalists on purpose
US also did in Iraq. And? Does it make US's invasion of Iraq a genocide? Ukranians killed Russian journalists too. Does it make the war in Ukraine a genocide?
> they have systematically blocked aid
Egypt did so as well. Moreover, despite its international obligations, Egypt refused to accept Palestinian refugees as if it wanted a lot of civilians to die.
> Their friend minister recently declared an intent to eliminate all Palestinian territory.
You mean politicians pandering to their base?
> You're just lying.
Sure.
Please provide sources. Genocide is not a matter of cherry-picking or of opinion. People who take this debate seriously look into context and evidence with a level of detail that goes beyond what can be covered here. Anyone interested in arguments and counterarguments will inevitable have to refer to authorities in the matter who have the background, time and resources.
Don't bother. He just effectively argued that there are no illegitimate targets in war because soldiers can be anywhere and that hospitals must be targeted or else they are "get out of jail free cards" whatever the fuck that means. War is war, but war crimes are still war crimes. No point trying to have rational discourse with someone advocating for war crimes.
> He just effectively argued that there are no illegitimate targets in war
No, this is not what I've said.
> because soldiers can be anywhere and that hospitals must be targeted or else they are "get out of jail free cards" whatever the fuck that means.
The law is clear in this regard. If you use hospital for military purposes, it is a valid target.
> War is war, but war crimes are still war crimes.
When a hospital is used for military purposes and then attacked, it is not a war crime from the PoV of international law. You may not like it, but it is a fact.
> No point trying to have rational discourse with someone advocating for war crimes.
I think you are irrational here. Your reasoning is based on emotions, and not facts.
> The law is clear in this regard. If you use hospital for military purposes, it is a valid target.
This is wrong. Hospitals can only be valid targets if they are used to launch "acts harmful to the enemy". There are countless military purposes that still don't rise to that level. Sheltering soldiers, even using floors as war rooms for planning is not enough. Any response taken against a hospital must also be proportionate to the harm. Small arms fire from a hospital window does not justify bombing the entire building into rubble.
> This is wrong.
No, it is not. Even hiding in the hospital make the hospital loose its protection (see here: https://lieber.westpoint.edu/legal-protection-hospitals-duri...)
This piece in particular:
> The ICRC’s Commentary cites as examples “firing at the enemy for reasons other than individual self-defence, installing a firing position in a medical post, the use of a hospital as a shelter for able-bodied combatants, as an arms or ammunition dump, or as a military observation post.” It also states that “transmitting information of military value” or being used “as a centre for liaison with fighting troops” results in loss of protection.
> Sheltering soldiers, even using floors as war rooms for planning is not enough.
It is enough for the hospital to loose its protection.
> Any response taken against a hospital must also be proportionate to the harm.
This is completely different question though: proportionality of response vs. protected status of various institutions and buildings at war.
> Please provide sources.
Sources to what? Laws of war?
W.r.t. hospitals, you can read this article: https://lieber.westpoint.edu/legal-protection-hospitals-duri...
This piece in particular:
> The ICRC’s Commentary cites as examples “firing at the enemy for reasons other than individual self-defence, installing a firing position in a medical post, the use of a hospital as a shelter for able-bodied combatants, as an arms or ammunition dump, or as a military observation post.” It also states that “transmitting information of military value” or being used “as a centre for liaison with fighting troops” results in loss of protection.
So, given that Palestinians used schools consistently to hide weapons, are you saying that it never happens? It seems to me completely unreasonable to claim that Israelis destroyed "all the schools, hospitals, universities because they want genocide" very questionable given that Palestinians used civilian infrastructure and NGOs for its resistance in the past. If they did it, why won't they do it again?
Link: https://www.unrwa.org/newsroom/press-releases/unrwa-condemns...
> Genocide is not a matter of cherry-picking or of opinion.
Of course not. It is also not a a single %.
> People who take this debate seriously look into context and evidence with a level of detail that goes beyond what can be covered here. Anyone interested in arguments and counterarguments will inevitable have to refer to authorities in the matter who have the background, time and resources.
Absolutely. However, people here are using the term genocide as it is a settled matter. Moreover, their whole reasoning boils down to metrics that either show that any war is a genocide, or have no bearing at all.
Russian invasion of Ukraine is absolutely a genocidal war, with genocidal claims spoken out loud and actions documented, tens of thousands of times.
Never heard someone in USA claiming that Iraqis or Iranians had no right to exist, saying that they are not a real country and/or nation. This rhetoric is pretty much main stream in russia and used to justify ongoing genocide.
> And at the double standards applied to Russians and Israelis in their wars of aggression.
I would argue that funding Axis of Resistance from Hezbollah to Houthis is aggression too. Let’s not pretend that IR minded their own business, and suddenly was under attack.
There was literally a puppet regime in the 70s backed and promoted by the US.
And since then Iran has always been in US and Israeli crossfire.
You also need to try to understand their point of view.
There's no doubt Iran has promoted armed resistance and terrorism, don't get me wrong, but ask yourself how much of this is about their own safety and defence. It's not 0%, far from it.
> There was literally a puppet regime in the 70s backed and promoted by the US.
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.
Just FYI, Chomsky, answering "Is Iran a Threat?": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdxxVxtHK2M
It's called R2P.
[flagged]
The Epstein people, as in, the Jews?
Jewish supremacists, which definitely does not mean every Jew.
Not to mention all the numerous threats to wipe Israel off the map by Iran, Hez etc.
Let's not pretend Iran is innocent please. Or Hamas either.
Meanwhile "from the river to the sea" was actual Likud's election slogan before Hamas co-opted it. There are absolutely elements in Israel - and to be clear, in its government, with the ability to and motivation to make it happen, not just extremists posting on their forums - what are quite happy with the idea of razing both Gaza and the West Bank to the ground for settling. And their idea of what to do with the people displaced by this ranges from collateral damage to a shrug of the shoulders and making them someone else's problem.
> Not to mention all the numerous threats to wipe Israel off the map by Iran, Hez etc.
That's a well debunked lie told by zionists for decades. Nobody cares anymore. Besides it's "israel" wiping palestine off the map.
> Let's not pretend Iran is innocent please. Or Hamas either.
Far more innocent than israel.
> That's a well debunked lie told by zionists for decades.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine_Square_Countdown_Clo...
> That's a well debunked lie told by zionists for decades. Nobody cares anymore. Besides it's "israel" wiping palestine off the map.
How can you debunk something that the officials of Islamic Republic, Hezbollah, and various Palestinian fractions were saying out in the open for years? Ddi you just make it disappear?
> And at the double standards applied to Russians and Israelis in their wars of aggression
To be fair, this is the new standard. Russia has promulgated it through its actions in Georgia and Ukraine. China with Tibet and Taiwan. America with Iraq, Venezuela and Iran. The old rules-based international order is dead, and with it Pax Americana.
The wishes of a small group of people aren't the default for the majority. This is why the small group of people say that strong leaders for life, with no checks, are normal and natural.
> wishes of a small group of people aren't the default for the majority
In a geopolitical context, the words and actions of the powerful are what count. And those words and actions currently point–uniformly–towards sovereign borders not being a red line.
I'm certain that Persians will remain in Iran, Arabs in Palestine, and Jews in Germany for any reasonable number of lifetimes we could count. The wishes of a few fascists don't outlast their death.
> the old rules-based international order
At most that was a couple of decades, it's not like that's an ancient status quo.
> that was a couple of decades, it's not like that's an ancient status quo
Sure. The century-long peace following the Napoleonic Wars was also some decades.
Our default state, unfortunately, is war. But we sought to change that after the horrors of WWII (and the nuclear bomb), and it's worth nothing where those noble goals succeeded. It's sad that project is over. But something being sad doesn't mean it isn't true.
"worth nothing" -> "worth noting"
!!
Lol. Yes.
[flagged]
> insane that the West commits war crimes and people still comment: “It’s china’s fault”
Insane that people see a list of common actions by Russia, China and America and still conclude Chinese victimhood.
Name one country China has attacked/invaded in the last 40 years.
India, Russia, Philippines, Vietnam (south China sea island taking), Russia (their last border skirmish was in the 90s), itself (PLA soldiers were used and killed people in TS 1989).
(EDIT in lieu of multiple replies - a random border fuckup is not an invasion in my book)
And the body count from all of those tiny border skirmishes together? Its less than these 24 hours in Iran, right?
You asked for names of countries. That was provided. What you're doing here is called moving the goalposts.
If you include TS 1989 then the body count is much higher than that last 24 hours in Iran.
Are you seriously asking us for the PLA accrued body count in the last 40 years? You can just ask that directly, you won’t like the answer though.
Where are you gonna move the goalposts to next?
A fuckup at the border is not an "attack/invasion". If China/Russia/India attacked each other for real, it would not look like a fuckup.
I'm being consistent with my goalposts.
The idea that China hasn't 'attacked anyone' in 40 years is factually incorrect. In 1988, they engaged in a deadly naval skirmish with Vietnam over the Johnson South Reef. More recently, the PLA engaged in fatal border clashes with India in the Galwan Valley (2020). On top of direct skirmishes, they have engaged in constant gray-zone aggression: violently ramming Philippine and Vietnamese vessels in the South China Sea, firing water cannons at supply ships, and surrounding Taiwan with live-fire military blockades. That doesn't even touch on the internal human rights abuses against the Uyghurs in Xinjiang. Multiple international bodies and governments have recognized what they are doing to Uyghurs since 2014 as genocide. Finally, it's hard to ignore their devastating handling of COVID-19. The active suppression of information, punishment of early whistleblowers, and refusal to cooperate with international investigations resulted in unprecedented worldwide damage, amounting to an act of gross global endangerment.
> Name one country China has attacked/invaded in the last 40 years
India [1].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020%E2%80%932021_China%E2%80%...
I said "attacked/invaded", not "had some fistfights at the border". Could we set the standard at "at least one piece of military equipment fired on people"?
Bear in mind that we're comparing this to the USA and Israel's military record over the last 40 years.
> I said "attacked/invaded", not "had some fistfights at the border"
Disputed border region. Used military force to intervene. That's an attack.
> Could we set the standard at "at least one piece of military equipment fired on people"?
Why not tens of soldiers killed? (And on what planet do "the 4th (Highland) Motorised Infantry and 6th (Highland) Mechanised Infantry Divisions" of the PLA not contain military equipment?)
> we're comparing this to the USA and Israel's military record over the last 40 years
No, you are. The list I stated was China, Russia and America. You're trying to argue that China upholds the rules-based international order around respecting sovereign borders. That would be news in Taipei.
I'm arguing that China has, generously, inflicted maybe 1k military casualties in the last 40 years if we round everything all the way up.
You're arguing that China is the real bad guy while USA/Israel are doing 10x that in the current 24 hours.
> I'm arguing that China has, generously, a 3-4 figure body count in the last 40 years
If we ignore proxy wars, sure.
And you're still arguing a straw man. Nobody in this thread ever said that China was as warlike as Russia and America (and Israel and Iran). Just that it has embraced the same geopolitical philosphy and standard.
> Small scale melee combat at the border.
> Casualties: 35 combatants killed
Uh-huh.
So, half of the number of people we killed in our Venezuela attack. Of which half were innocent civilians.
Hey, could you really quick remind me how many civilians the US killed in Afghanistan? Something like 500,000 right?
Not here to say China is a good guy by any means, but your example was so bad I laughed out loud.
> your example
The examples I gave were Tibet and Taiwan. I was asked to give "one country China has attacked/invaded in the last 40 years," a timeline chosen to exlude the Sino-Vietnamese war [1] and encompass the wake of the Soviet Union's collapse. I did, prioritizing directness, recency and death toll.
I'm not saying China is as militarily forward as Russia or America (or Israel or Iran). I'm saying that the double standard isn't a double standard, it's one Xi explicilty embraces with his rhetoric around Taiwan.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Vietnamese_War
No one here is saying this is China fault, they’re saying the current situation is on par for how the USA, China and Russia treat the world.
In this thread the only reason people have brought up Chinese issues are because the strong defensiveness of others like China is some saint. They’re not.
Also I think two more examples were missed, how Ukraine wouldn’t have been invaded without china’s tolerance of their ally doing it, and Hong Kong repression. Also how Iran and Ukraine make it much more likely they finally go for Taiwan like they’ve been posturing to do.
To deny China isn’t like Russia and the US in this regards is like thinking Trump was going to be the peace president as he claimed
[flagged]
> only major country/culture that has never been aggressive towards it's neighbors is India
I have Indian heritage, and I heard this take growing up, and I'll concede that India is on the peaceful side of the international median. That said, the folks in Sri Lanka [1][2] and Bangladesh [3] would aggressively disagree. (Book recommendation: The Seven Moons of Maali Almeida [4]. Also, anything by Assamese authors.)
And this thesis really only applies to modern India. Pre-EIC India was a subcontinent of warring states. And even for the "modern India" designation, we have to ignore the violence of political integration [5][6].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_intervention_in_the_Sri...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaffna_hospital_massacre
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bangladesh_Liberation_War
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Seven_Moons_of_Maali_Almei...
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portuguese_India
[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Hyderabad
India saved Bangladesh from genocide at the hands of Pakistan. Those ungrateful bastards still stand with Pakistan on everything against India. I don't know why you would bring that up. India could have easily took over Bangladesh after Pakistani forces surrendered, but they chose to let them be independent.
Sri Lanka is more complicated, but India was never directly involved in the conflict. Except for the peace keeping forces it sent, and those too targeted the Indian Tamils, which was the reason they assassinated Rajeev Gandhi.
> Those ungrateful bastards
Well yes, we turned them into a suzerainty. The Iranians didn't like it when America did it through the Shah. The Bangladeshis don't like it when Indians think they should be a supplicant sovereign. (Sheikh Hassina was to New Delhi what the Shah was to D.C.)
Like, America rescued Japan from a ruinous autocracy. It would still be mean and violent to demand their gratitude for us nuking them.
> India could have easily took over Bangladesh
And it would have had another Kashmir. In practice, buffer state was the only correct play. (Arguably, it's what China should have done with Tibet.)
> India was never directly involved in the conflict. Except for the peace keeping forces
Yeah. The entire American occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan was done with "peacekeeping" forces. The peacekeepers in both cases committed documented atrocities.
> The peacekeepers in both cases committed documented atrocities.
The huge part you are missing is, India did the atrocities against it's own people. LTTE were Tamils of Indian origin. My original comment said India has never been an aggressor to it's neighbors.
> India did the atrocities against it's own people
Everyone always says this. Taiwanese are ethnically Chinese. Ukrainians aren't real. And India wasn't subjugated by the British, it was part of the British Empire and thus a domestic concern.
> LTTE were Tamils of Indian origin. My original comment said India has never been an aggressor to it's neighbors
If you redefine neighbors to being inside India, and then excuse atrocities inside India, sure. By that definition, nobody has ever been an aggresor to its neighbors.
1971: India intervened militarily in East Pakistan, leading to the creation of Bangladesh.
1987–1990: India deployed ~70,000 troops to Sri Lanka and engaged in combat during the civil war.
1971: India saved Bangladesh from absolute genocide.
1987-1990: Indian peace keeping troops only targeted Indian Tamils, which was the primary reason they assassinated Rajeev Gandhi.
Sure:
https://www.cfr.org/global-conflict-tracker/conflict/conflic...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India%E2%80%93Pakistan_wars_an...
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cwy6w6507wqo
In which one of these India was the aggressor?
All of them. It turns out there's plenty of blame to go around.
That's always been the nature of partition.
Because it's only existed since 1947?
Indian culture is over 5000 years old. It was a British colony for only about a century.
You said country/culture. If you're counting the Mughal empire, the Mughals were warlike.
Mughals were not Indian. They were invaders from central Asia. Do some reading.
I dunno, I've been reading for hours, I might play some games.
So the Mughals defeated and assimilated the Sultanate of Delhi ruled by the Afghan Lodi dynasty. Then they defeated and assimilated the Rajput Kingdom of Mewar ... who were Hindu ... ah, I've got it, you must mean Hindus. So excluding Shah Jahan and the Taj Mahal from being Indian I guess. I'll figure this out eventually.
Right then: Rana Sanga (the Rajput Maharana of Mewar) invaded and captured lots of territory belonging to the Malwa Sultanate, the Gujurat Sultanate, and the Lodi dynasty (again). So there you go. You can't say that those places were India at the time, and you can't say he was from the wrong culture, checkmate.
Rana sangha took back his territory. And the other conflicts you mention were against fellow "Indians". I put it in quotes, because as you mention there was no India back then. But there was a shared culture and off course religion. I never said Indians were never violent. My original comment was that India (as a whole) has never been the aggressor against it's neighbors. And you still haven't disproved that. I don't know what you are checkmating.
But we agree there was no India to ascribe this non-invasive nature to, before unification. With the result that India-as-a-whole is the product of aggression against neighbors, where all those neighbors became India, but only quite recently, meaning that there hasn't been much time for India as a whole to be aggressive against further neighbors.
It's like saying that the English never invaded anywhere before 927. Of course they didn't, because the first English king was crowned in 927, and before that the English were the West Saxons, South Saxons, East Angles, Middle Angles, South Angles, Men of Kent, two flavors of Northumbrians and a few stray Welsh, and they were all busy invading one another.
What? Kashmir, Pakistan, China, Sri lanka... I don't think has any neighbors it hasn't been aggressive towards. Was this sarcasm and I missed it?
> Kashmir, Pakistan, China, Sri lanka
China doesn't belong on this list. Nehru's government was aggressively pro China. China returned the favour by invading Tibet and then attacking India [1].
If Mao hadn't done that, we'd probably be living in a Sino-Indian world order today. (India and China have surprisingly few fundamental geopolitical overlaps, the Himalayas neatly partitioning their spheres.)
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Indian_War
They had some recent border scuffles, I think, on the level of pulling faces at the foreigners or something like that. Yeah, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020%E2%80%932021_China%E2%80%...
Hmm, so in eastern Kashmir, in fact. Versus Tibet!
China's invasion and annexation of Tibet (versus making it a bufffer state) set the geopolitical board. There was a world in which China and India could have peacefully co-existed, and the historical record shows India trying for that before China attacked.
India never attacked Pakistan. Every war was started by Pakistan. India took over vast swathes of Pakistan in 1971 but unilaterally returned all the land. Kashmir is integral part of India. India didn't attack china, China attacked it.
Your turn.
Returning the land doesn't make 1971 ok. There are no excuses for sri lanka and sikkim. The 2019 strikes on Pakistan seem unwarranted from the outside. I'll conceed China's claims India was the aggressor are very questionable.
From Wikipedia on 1971 war: "The war began with Pakistan's Operation Chengiz Khan, consisting of preemptive aerial strikes on eight Indian air stations." India has never started a war. Period. In 2019 again Pakistan attacked first through it's terrorist proxies. In Sri Lanka Indian forces only killed LTTE who were Tamils of Indian origin. Nothing ever happened in sikkim.
The conflicts with Pakistan always do start with Pakistan, but the response is always disproportionate, and seeds future similar conflicts. Its not starting a war. The Sri lanka conflict is not so simple. If you invade a country that doesn't consent to you being there, but only kill a non-governmental group while there, and then leave, I think that is essentially a war. Likewise when you set up fake referendums to annex Sikkim that is just conquest by other means. India has not behaved as badly as many other powers, but that foes not mean we shouldn't point out where it missteps.
Cannot reply to the comment below, so I'll comment here.
I see you had shifted the goal posts from being aggressor to "disproportionate response". My original comment said India has never been the aggressor and thanks for finally agreeing to that. I will not comment on the response being disproportionate or not, because that is just an attempt to derail the original conversation.
Yeah after reading more on each of the Pakistani conflicts it does seem that the immediate cause in each case was Pakistan. You made me change my mind on that one. I'm sure the whole thing is far more complicated than anyone who didn't live through the split could understand, but it does seem India is not the aggressor in any of those cases. Sri lanka seems like India's equivalent to Afghanistan or at worst Gaza, so relatively speaking it isn't on par with Ukraine for instance. Sikkim I don't fully understand, but it seems analogous to conquest.
[flagged]
Goa was part of India before colonized and Pakistan is the epic center of terrorism.
> Don't forget India with Goa and pakistan, bangladesh, etc.
Literally down thread (well, up now–I commented before you got downvoted) [1].
> You are my favorite hindu
You're a recurring racist troll. News at 11.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47195844
> China with Tibet and Taiwan
What do you mean? China has bought Tibet from the British. And what have they done with Taiwan?
> China has bought Tibet from the British
China invaded and annexed Tibet in 1951 [1].
You may be thinking of Hong Kong, which the British invaded and annexed from the Qing dynasty [2] and then handed back to China in 1997 [3] under conditions that Beijing defaulted on in 2019 [4].
> what have they done with Taiwan?
Same as America has been doing with Greenland.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Tibet_by_the_Peo...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Hong_Kong
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handover_of_Hong_Kong
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019%E2%80%932020_Hong_Kong_pr...
> You may be thinking of Hong Kong
No, I was thinking about this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_Between_Great_Brita...
The way I understood this treaty was that the global powers in 1906 (Russia and Great Britain) accepted Tibet as part of China without the need for a war.
In the context of your comment, you say the US and Russia attack sovereign countries and you mention Tibet and Taiwan in the same sentence. Sorry but Taiwan has not been invaded by China, and Tibet was at the time internationally agreed as being part of China (not that I agree with that). Not the same ballpark sorry.
[flagged]
> So, nothing?
No. Threatening to invade a sovereign country, and then staging materiel to do it, is not "nothing." At the every least, it's something the U.S. (and China and Russia) once criticised others for doing. And it's something we've each done.
I know I left that Nobel Peace Prize somewhere … but I can't find it because there's so much America First lying around. I know, I'll ask the aliens and the US men's hockey team if they've seen it.
surely you mean the coveted FIFA Peace Prize!
Laser pointers are to cats as sparkly objects are to Trump.
covfefe
Being attacked should rule out 'war of aggression', but I guess the phrase seems to have lost any meaning in modern discourse. Apparently you can spend all the time calling 'death to X' and then get shocked when others take you seriously.
> Being attacked should rule out 'war of aggression'
It usually does. The argument here is about the proportion of the response.
There were tens of thousands of Iranian rockets fired at Israel just since Oct 7. Hezbollah did the majority of the launches, but there's no doubt about who sent the rockets or for what purpose. What would be a proportional response to that?
Proportion is always the argument concerning Israeli responses, never with anybody else.
You seem to have forgotten that the US attacked Iran first, which made this regime even possible in the first place.
> You seem to have forgotten that the US attacked Iran first, which made this regime even possible in the first place.
Bombing of US marine barracks in Beirut in 1983 was funded, and organized by Iran. Just take half day off, and read a bit on the role of Islamic Republic in Middle East in the past 40 years. I guarantee your stance of "US attacked first" will change to the "unclear" at the least.
Yeah and the 1953 coup to overthrow the Iranian prime minister and install a US puppet (the Shah) was organized by the CIA. We could also add that in the 1980's the US was actively supporting Iraq in its war against Iran.
This kind of thinking won't get you very far and won't ensure peace in the region.
> This kind of thinking won't get you very far and won't ensure peace in the region.
That's for sure.
That is not clear at all!
The Lebanese Muslims at the time were furious that the Sixth Fleet was constantly shelling Shouf. At the time the Phalangists, with Israeli help, had recently murdered 3500 women and children at the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps.
There were and are plenty of grievances to go around in Lebanon.
> The Lebanese Muslims at the time were furious that the Sixth Fleet was constantly shelling Shouf.
Lebanese muslims are not a monolith. Shia and Sunni have very different opinions on things, and the 1983 barracks bombing was not done by the sunnis.
Anyway, what I am trying to say is that treating war with Islamic Republic today as some sort of consequence of the June 2025 is a mistake.
40 years is an interesting cutoff of where to start history. Did Iran show any aggression to the USA before the Coup d'etat organized by the CIA and MI6?
You do know that the people and groups that started the revolution in 1979 were basically all imprisoned and murdered by the islamists that rule Iran now?
I did not say that Iran started its war in the shadows with US in 1983, I just showed that the scope of the conflict is not limited to the past two years.
You're moving the goalpost now. This started with US imperialism in 1953. Iran wouldn't do what the US wanted, so they installed a puppet, like they always do all over the world.
It seems you needed more than half a day because you needed to go back further than 40 years.
>I guess Israel can play the "October 7th" card at least which was an insane horror.
If October 7th is an "insane horror", what words will suffice to describe the decades of far worse crimes committed by Israel?
Considering the scale of suffering caused by this conflict, October 7th was just a small blip.
Can you provide some support for your moral position? You’ve also put “insane horror” in scare quotes, which honestly I find troubling.
Does your moral account provide some justificatory, non-antisemitic framework based on colonialism or oppression that allows us to sidestep the issues with Gazans’ support of Jihad, other extremist doctrines, and the extermination of Jews?
It’s kind of a rhetorical question, but it’s the least I would expect for someone to argue credibly about the morality of the conflict.
They're not "scare quotes", they're quotes.
Huh? In English orthography, quotes can serve multiple purposes.
Most native English speakers wouldn’t see the parent’s use of quotes (quotation marks) as merely mention.
This isn't the least bit confusing man. The author confirms the purpose of the quotes, which is effortlessly understandable by native and non-native speakers alike. They were used to quote and comment on a direct phrase from the parent comment.
You absolutely do not need to double down on whatever it is you are doing here lol. Say you were wrong and move on.
Yeah, they're just quotes. It's a quote.
>Can you provide some support for your moral position?
Yes, of course. A bunch of people from Europe decided to move to Palestine and start a religious ethnostate there. In doing so they expelled and murdered lots of local residents.
The surviving locals are understandably less than happy about this, and have continued to fight to defend their lands to this day.
Since then, the those people have caused far more harm to non-jewish Palestinians than non-jewish Palestinians have caused to the those people.
>allows us to sidestep the issues with Gazans’ support of Jihad, other extremist doctrines, and the extermination of Jews?
It's perfectly natural that Gazans would support the extermination of jews. In the extreme environment that Israeli jews force Palestinians to live in, it's fundamentally ridiculous to even describe it as an extremist position.
In a comfortable European context it's certainly extreme, but that's a fundamentally dishonest way of portraying it.
"It's perfectly natural that Gazans would support the extermination of Jews."
That's not a point about colonialism or occupation; that's a justification for ethnic extermination based on the conditions of the people holding the position. By that logic there is no floor: any atrocity becomes "perfectly natural" if the grievance is large enough.
In your broader argument you're describing a blood debt with no statute of limitations and no mechanism for resolution. Skåne (where I live) was Danish. Alsace was German. Most of Europe was Roman. At some point borders exist, people live within them, and the only available direction is forward. You haven't described a political framework- you've described a permanent state of war with no exit condition except one side's disappearance.
You just said it's perfectly natural to want to exterminate an ethnic group. Read that back.
>By that logic there is no floor: any atrocity becomes "perfectly natural" if the grievance is large enough.
This is mostly true, yeah. Do you not believe that humans act like that?
>In your broader argument you're describing a blood debt with no statute of limitations and no mechanism for resolution
Nonsense.
>Skåne (where I live) was Danish. Alsace was German. Most of Europe was Roman. At some point borders exist, people live within them, and the only available direction is forward.
Except Israel does not want Palestine to move forward.
There are approximately zero living people that give a shit about the things you mentioned, there are millions of living Palestinians who do care and suffer at the hands of Israeli state every single day.
How did you intend for this comparison to be even vaguely relevant?
>you've described a permanent state of war with no exit condition except one side's disappearance.
This is deliberately obtuse, Israel has had a plenty of ways to largely exit this conflict. At the very least they could've given all Palestinians Israeli citizenship and equal rights decades ago.
Of course, that's not really compatible with the ideals of the jewish ethnostate. I'm sure the Palestinians wouldn't seriously object though.
>You just said it's perfectly natural to want to exterminate an ethnic group. Read that back.
I'll repeat it if you want me to. We've seen it over and over again in history, it's hardly a new thing.
Considering how the jewish people choose to treat the Palestinians, it is not surprising that Palestinians want to exterminate the jewish people. It is a perfectly predictable reaction, and not some special quirk of the Palestinians.
Israel has been at the table at Oslo, Camp David, Taba and Annapolis. Palestinian leadership walked away from each without a counter-proposal. That's not a secret.
Since I already wrote a reply to your now-deleted comment:
>You've just made my point. The reason Skåne isn't contested is that there are no living people suffering under Danish occupation of it. You've described the mechanism yourself: time plus resolution. That's exactly what a two-state settlement would produce. You've argued for the process without noticing.
Israel has explicitly rejected that over and over again, and continues to do so every day through ongoing annexations.
There will never be moral high ground for the state of Israel as long as it allows the settlements to exist and doesn't at the very least honor it's internationally recognized borders.
>On citizenship: Israel granting full citizenship to all Palestinians would mean the end of a Jewish majority state within a generation, by demographics alone. You know that. Proposing it as a "simple solution Israel refused" is not a good faith argument; it's describing the dissolution of Israel but painting it as moderation.
A jewish ethnostate is as morally unacceptable as an aryan ethnostate.
>On extermination: you've moved from "perfectly natural" to "perfectly predictable." Those aren't the same thing. Predictable means understandable given the circumstances. Natural means it requires no further justification. You've retreated and you haven't noticed.
No, it's both. It's predictable because it's a natural reaction.
Deleted it, yeah, I've decided it wasn't worth it. Still isn't, mostly.
This will be my last comment to you, I don't want to engage with someone so comfortable at defending genocide.
One final fact check for you: a state with 20% Arab citizens who vote, sit in the Knesset and serve on the Supreme Court is not comparable to a state founded on racial extermination. That comparison doesn't survive contact with the facts.
The settlements are illegal and indefensible. I said so already in this thread.
Everything else you've written today you can own.
>One final fact check for you: a state with 20% Arab citizens who vote, sit in the Knesset and serve on the Supreme Court is not comparable to a state founded on racial extermination. That comparison doesn't survive contact with the facts.
It is an indisputable historical fact that jewish zionists expelled vast amounts of Palestinians from their homes and forced them out of the territory of what is now modern Israel.
>This will be my last comment to you, I don't want to engage with someone so comfortable at defending genocide.
I'm not defending genocide, that's a ridiculous interpretation of my words. I'm just pointing out the fact that if you keep poking someone long or hard enough, you shouldn't be surprised when they eventually want to get rid of you.
I certainly don't think the extermination of Israeli jews would in any way be a positive outcome.
[flagged]
No one disagrees that the Gazans feel the way they do. But your position is a stronger one. You seem to be excusing or justifying the moral behavior of Gazans in a way that looks self-undermining.
It’s not morally credible to focus on the Jews’ actions alone, given the broader context of the conflict, Islamic conquest and domination. I don’t want to be patronizing and give history lessons, but antisemitism, Jihadism, and other Islamicist extremist doctrines predate the state of Israel by centuries.
So, are you saying that it's not justified for Gazans to feel the way they do? Why not?
> It’s not morally credible to focus on the Jews’ actions alone, given the broader context of the conflict, Islamic conquest and domination. I don’t want to be patronizing and give history lessons, but antisemitism, Jihadism, and other Islamicist extremist doctrines predate the state of Israel by centuries.
That's just whataboutism and has approximately nothing to do with the conflict started by the creation of the modern state of Israel.
The only people who you could reasonably blame besides the zionist jews are the other Europeans.
"small blip" isn't a political take, it's just wrong.
October 7th was the deadliest per capita terrorist attack since the Global Terrorism Database started recording in 1970 [1]. Globally, it's third on the all-time list (behind only 9/11 and one IS attack [1]. The confirmed death toll from Israeli social security data (not government press releases) is 1,139, which still makes it 31 times deadlier than the next worst attack in Israeli history [2][3].
You invoked scale. Those are the numbers. They don't say what you wanted them to say.
And for the record: one atrocity not excusing another cuts both ways. Nobody here argued otherwise. What was actually said (by the person you're replying to) is that you cannot use scale as your framework whilst hand-waving away the single largest data point in the argument.
If you mean the Nakba, Sabra and Shatila, or the current death toll in Gaza — those are serious. But "decades of far worse crimes" doing the work of making October 7th a "small blip" doesn't follow. You can have a long ledger of serious grievances and still recognise that one morning where 1,139 people were massacred (including at a music festival, in kibbutz bedrooms, in bomb shelters) was not a blip. It was the deadliest single terrorist attack per capita since records began.
There is no moral argument for October 7th, and the reaction is disproportionate and unjustifiable - but inevitable. We should all be so unlucky to have neighbours like those, and nobody knows how we would all act if we did.
[1] https://www.csis.org/analysis/hamass-october-7-attack-visual...
[2] https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20231215-israel-social...
[3] https://www.csis.org/analysis/hamass-october-7-attack-visual...
> October 7th was the deadliest per capita terrorist attack since the Global Terrorism Database started recording in 1970
> You invoked scale. Those are the numbers. They don't say what you wanted them to say.
1200 Oct7 vs tens of thousands in annexation and retaliation.
The numbers speak for themselves. No need to cherry pick.
Nobody cherry-picked anything. Per capita, single-event, it's the number that answers the claim that was actually made — that October 7th was a "blip."
What you're doing now is a different argument entirely: aggregate conflict deaths over 77 years vs. one morning. That's not context, it's a category error dressed up as one.
For what it's worth, the full Palestinian death toll since 1948 is ~136,000 [1] — a Palestinian source, so spare me the bias complaint. That's across eight decades, multiple Arab-Israeli wars, three intifadas, and several state actors. October 7th still isn't a blip. It's a massacre inside a war.
Which is exactly what everyone's been saying.
[1] https://english.wafa.ps/Pages/Details/145161
> What you're doing now is a different argument entirely:
I've not made an argument. I've provided the proper context that supports the original point.
>> Considering the scale of suffering caused by this conflict, - Jasonadrury
your response:
> That's not context, it's a category error dressed up as one.
You have shifted goalposts in every post. The context was the conflict in aggregate. Continue arguing with yourself. It's not compelling.
"I've not made an argument" is a fascinating claim immediately after quoting someone who used aggregate scale to call October 7th a "blip"- and agreeing with them.
Providing context in support of a conclusion is making an argument. That's what arguments are.
The goalposts that moved: "blip" (single event framing) -> "scale of the conflict" (aggregate framing) -> "I wasn't arguing anything." Three posts, three different claims, now apparently none of them count.
Noted.
What’s an ‘event’?
...
A discrete incident with a defined start, end, perpetrator and location.
(As opposed to a 77-year conflict involving multiple states, wars and actors.)
Now ask me one on sport.
That is pretty much the definition of cherry picking right there.
You sure have a big stake in defending a genocide, Jan.
The OCHA data is linked above. Read it or don't.
Rockets regularly target Israel. If that happened to USA the war would start with the first one no matter if it was intercepted or not. Same with any other self-respecting country. Israel is fully justified trying to eliminate threats to itself. It's not only about October 7th.
I notice that your database does not for whatever reason contain any of the actions taken by the Israeli government, why is that?
How are we supposed to get an understanding of the scale of these events while totally disregarding Israeli actions?
Because the Global Terrorism Database records non-state terrorist attacks.
State military action is categorised separately: that's not an omission, it's a definition, but you know that- you're playing stupid. The same database doesn't record US drone strikes or Russian artillery either, weird, right? Must be suppression!!!
If you want Israeli state violence, OCHA tracks it. That data has been cited in this thread already.
I know that, but why are you referring to this database then? It's just not really relevant in this particular context.
You're saying that the numbers don't say what I want them to say, but then you choose a rather weird set of numbers to demonstrate this with. It's weird!
The reaction by the Israelis against the Palestinians is even worse
The reaction is worse in what sense, exactly? Raw numbers? Then you're back to the same argument as above, where October 7th (again, the third deadliest terrorist attack since records began in 1970) somehow doesn't count.
Nobody serious disputes that Gazan civilians are suffering enormously. The argument isn't about that. It's about whether Hamas represents them, and the answer is: less and less, given that Hamas hasn't held an election since 2006, has siphoned aid money into tunnels and rockets for two decades [1], and on October 7th sent men with garden tools to decapitate Thai agricultural workers [2] and film themselves doing it.
You can condemn Israel's conduct (and there's plenty to condemn) without pretending the people who started this particular escalation were freedom fighters having a bad day.
[1] https://www.csis.org/analysis/hamass-october-7-attack-visual...
[2] https://www.nationthailand.com/world/middle-east-africa/4003...
> Nobody serious disputes that Gazan civilians are suffering enormously. The argument isn't about that.
Why isn’t it?
Because it's a different argument to the one being made, and addressing seventeen things at once is how threads become unreadable.
But since you're asking: go up four comments and you'll find it already addressed there in some detail. Keep up.
I think wholesale genocide of an entire population by the Israeli state is worse. The plan is obviously drive the Palestinians onto the sea (metaphorically) and make the place uninhabitable.
Israel (and I want to be clear, I am referring to Israel the state) has blood on their hands. This went way beyond a "self defense" thing - flattening the entire country, indiscriminate killing of civilians and children, murdering paramedics and bombing ambulances, destroying schools hospitals apartment buildings etc. By a modern democratic state with the most accurate smart weapons available. It's simply unbelievable to me that they are getting away with it.
>I think wholesale genocide of an entire population by the Israeli state is worse
would be worse, but wasn't contemplated nor attempted so contributes no weight to the balance.
"from the river to the sea" on the other hand is a statement of genocidal intent.
Most of what you say I don't disagree with. Israel's conduct since October 8th (the civilian death toll, the aid blockade, the flattening of hospitals) is legitimate to call out. The ICJ found the genocide claim plausible enough to issue binding provisional measures, which Israel then ignored [1]. That's not nothing.
But "wholesale genocide" and "the plan is obviously to drive them into the sea" are stronger claims than the evidence supports right now, and that matters a lot because the moment you overreach, everyone who wants to dismiss Palestinian suffering has a rhetorical exit. The ICJ's own careful language exists for a reason.
None of that touches the original argument anyway: that October 7th was not a "small blip." Israel's conduct after October 8th doesn't retroactively change what happened on October 7th. Both things are true simultaneously. That's the whole point I'm making.
[1] https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/02/26/israel-not-complying-wor...
No, I think I have to respectfully disagree: in the continuum of the Palestine-Israel conflict, this was a small blip. Israel has been killing civilians indiscriminately for years/decades, annexing territory, bulldozing homes etc.
What was different this time was that it was Israel who was the victim, not the Palestinians. And the only way that Israel knows how to respond to these kinds of things is to kill and to destroy.
> I have to respectfully disagree
You are finding what happens when you show this ghouls any respect, in disagreeing or otherwise.
"What was different this time was that it was Israel who was the victim."
You've just described the deadliest day for Jews since the Holocaust [1] as a blip because, in your accounting, it was Israel's turn to absorb one.
The "continuum" framing doesn't hold up numerically either. In non-war years, OCHA records roughly 100–200 Palestinian deaths annually at Israeli hands [2]. Hamas killed 1,139 people before lunchtime. That's not a blip in a continuum, it's five to ten years of equivalent deaths in eight hours.
The youngest victim was 14 hours old [3]. The oldest was a 92-year-old Holocaust survivor [3]. None of those facts change based on who you think had it coming.
[1] https://www.ushmm.org/information/press/press-releases/museu...
[2] https://www.ochaopt.org/content/casualties-thousands-killed-...
[3] https://www.yahoo.com/news/youngest-october-7-victim-just-00...
I would have figured the families of the Jews who built Israel would have realized "holocaust bad, never again".
What they learned was "never again to us".
Just because your family had a holocaust executed against them, doesnt give you any (legal, ethical, moral) right to run your own holocaust.
And Israel is running a holocaust in Palestine, and has been for decades.
Everything is a holocaust or genocide to pro-Islamist lefties. Y'all've so discredited those terms that if at some point Israel actually does start a genocide, people will just shrug.
"There's a genocide going on in Gaza? Yeah I know, you've been whining about it for years now."
You do realize that there were live Israeli hostages Hamas held up until the last ceasefire?
"Nobody serious disputes that Gazan civilians are suffering enormously."
This is blatantly untrue. There are people who are saying there's no such thing as a "Gazan civilian".
Come off it, that's a technicality and everyone knows the meaning.
An uncharitable person would easily debunk this by making claims about the idea that 'because of israel they can't have a state to be civilian of' and then the topic gets super muddy because that's technically not true and we go around and around and around.
The Israeli government has been dehumanising the Gazan population in rhetoric for decades. Claiming that no one would deny their suffering is straight up false. It's not a technicality, it's a deliberate technique.
It's one of the things that could be stopped to prevent us going "around and around and around."
How can you claim this with a straight face, when Israel has slaughtered Palestinians like cattle every chance they have. And when they're not killing them with direct violence, they are robbing them of basic necessities and human dignity.
And how can you claim October 7th wasn't an act if war? The main thrust of the attacks were targeting military installations. Much more than Israeli actions in Gaza before or since, which have clearly been done in service of genocide since Israel was created.
The Palestinian genocide has not been a regular war, it has been an absolute extermination campaign that is still ongoing.
"The main thrust targeted military installations"— of 1,139 confirmed dead, 828 were civilians. That's 72%. They also massacred 364 people at a music festival, which Hamas later described as a "coincidence" because they "may have thought" ravers were soldiers "resting". That's the defence you're endorsing.
Nobody serious disputes that Gaza's suffering is real or that Israel's conduct warrants scrutiny. But "genocide since Israel was created" is doing a lot of work for you; the ICJ found Palestinian rights were "plausibly" at risk, not that 1948 was a genocide.
Words mean things. Overreaching doesn't help the people you're claiming to defend, it just makes it easier for the other side to dismiss everything else you say.
So the best you can say about Israel’s conduct over the course of the past 2.5 years is that it “warrants scrutiny”?
And if you want to play the number of victims game, even pre Oct 7 one side has always had it significantly worse than the other. After all, one side is a sovereign state that has a technologically advanced military, an air force, a navy, and air defense systems.
Remarkable. You've managed to read a comment that cited the ICJ, called out Israel's non-compliance with binding provisional measures, and explicitly said there's "plenty to condemn"; and concluded the position is that Israeli conduct merely "warrants scrutiny."
This isn't a conversation, it's not even engagement: that's just not reading.
On asymmetry: you've accidentally made the case for holding Israel to a higher standard. A nuclear-capable state with F-35s, Iron Dome and a $3.8bn annual US military subsidy [1] bears more responsibility for its choices than a militia in a blockaded strip of land; not less. That's what asymmetry actually means.
What it doesn't mean is that a music festival full of civilians somehow doesn't count. But nice try.
[1] https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF12587
> that Israel's conduct warrants scrutiny.
Was this not your choice of words?
> On asymmetry: you've accidentally made the case for holding Israel to a higher standard.
Huh? Are you replying to someone else?
Israel has killed 10s of thousands of civilians, a large portion of which are children. This along with many other factors - in addition to the higher standard expected from a sovereign state fighting an occupied people - is the reason we call it a genocide.
No, I think you're accusing me of a position I don't really have because I don't like Hamas or Israel, but you think my condemnation of Hamas is support of Israel or that by pointing out Israeli suffering I am turning a blind eye to Palestinian suffering.
It's almost as if we genuinely believe that because there are more deaths on one side, that the other is deserving and should not be condemned despite innocence.
Isn't that interesting.
A reminder: Israel counts Hamas soldiers as military targets, even when they are out of uniform and in civilian life.
If we apply the civilized world's standards of war then yes, Israelis who are also off-duty soldiers or reservists don't count as military targets.
If we apply Israel's standards, however, they are.
Are Gazans not allowed to apply the same standards to their adversaries that their adversaries openly apply to them? Would you be this courteous, in their position?
Of the 378 people killed at and around Nova, 16 were off-duty soldiers attending the rave and 4 were killed fighting [1]. That's 20 out of 378 ... so about 5%.
So even by the standard you're proposing, Hamas massacred around 358 people who wouldn't qualify as military targets under anyone's rules of engagement. Including theirs, apparently, since Hamas's own explanation was that they "may have thought" the ravers were soldiers "resting"; i.e. they didn't know and killed them anyway.
The argument you've constructed requires Hamas to have been applying a targeting framework. The evidence is that they found a large crowd of Israelis and opened fire.
[1] https://www.timesofisrael.com/idf-okayed-nova-music-festival...
Ah, so they'd only previously been members of the IDF?
Do you suppose Israel doesn't consider previous members of Hamas legitimate targets?
>The argument you've constructed requires Hamas to have been applying a targeting framework. The evidence is that they found a large crowd of Israelis and opened fire.
But that's effectively indistinguishable from the Israeli targeting framework where everyone connected to Hamas is a legitimate target.
This is settled in international humanitarian law. Per Human Rights Watch, citing ICRC guidance: "reservists of national armed forces are considered civilians except when they go on duty." [1] Off-duty at a music festival unambiguously qualifies as not on duty.
The argument that prior military service permanently strips civilian status has no basis in IHL. If it did, every Israeli who'd ever served (which is nearly all of them, given conscription) would be a legitimate target forever.
So: not a targeting framework, more like a justification for killing the entire population.
On your second point: Israel's targeting decisions are also subject to IHL, and where they kill civilians unlawfully that's also a war crime. That's not a defence of Hamas... it's the same standard applied consistently.
"They do it too" doesn't make either lawful.
For what it's worth, joining Hamas is a choice; IDF service is compulsory. The cases aren't analogous.
[1] https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/10/09/questions-and-answers-oc...
> This is settled in international humanitarian law
Neither participant in the Israel-Hamas conflict subscribes to that.
And I'm not really sure how you could expect the small resistance group to follow international humanitarian law when the big state they're fighting doesn't either? That seems absurd.
> This is settled in international humanitarian law.
Many things are settled in international humanitarian law, thus far it hasn't stopped either side from ignoring it wholesale.
A wonderful quote that demonstrates how Israel applies different standards to itself: even its active duty combatants are painted as helpless innocents!
“Nimrod Cohen was abducted from Tank 3”
https://www.ynetnews.com/article/hjzgyg9txg
Israel has to apply that standard because Hamas operates without uniforms unlike IDF. So yeah, Gazans shouldn't apply the same standard because unlike them Israeli military operates in uniforms so it's easy to distinguish between them and civilians. That Gazans do the opposite is on them.
Are you sure? Israel is kind of notorious for having people in civilian clothes kill its enemies.
Sure, if that happens then it needs to be investigated as a potential war crime. It still doesn't change the fact that Israel is in no position to apply that standard because fighting Gazans don't use uniforms. Obviously they will not treat people shooting at them and launching rockets at them as civilians.
[flagged]
For onlookers: the final paragraph is in Swedish. It calls me a far-right nationalist and racist. Draw your own conclusions about how that fits the pattern of this exchange.
On substance: 72% of October 7th victims were civilians by Israel's own social security data [1]. tovej's argument that this was primarily a military operation depends on not counting them.
The Hannibal directive is a separate and legitimate concern. It has nothing to do with whether Hamas targeted civilians — it addresses what Israel did in response.
[1] https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20231215-israel-social...
I'm going to call a racist a racist when I see it. I've had enough interactions with you on this site (and have given you many second chances to show good faith) to see a blatant pattern.
You're playing devils advocate any time a white supremacist, Israel, or racist bigot is under scrutiny.
And every time you deploy bad faith debate tactics. E.g. here you're strawmanning my argument to say I ignore the percentage of civilians dead. That's not true at all. My argument does not depend on not counting civilian victims. October 7th was a military operation, a guerilla warfare operation.
Most of the Supernova ravers Hamas killed on October 7th who died that day did not die at the rave, but at ad hoc checkpoints far away from the rave. Military checkpoints set up to intercept military re-inforcements.
The rave was not announced until the 6th of October, and Hamas was not aware of it. When people fled the rave, this triggered a massive flow of car traffic. And based on Hamas' limited intelligence, it is not unreasonable to assume that a sudden rush of car traffic could be related to the conflict.
The IDF also set up a road block near the rave, which led to a huge throng (3000 ravers) being caught near the site of the firefight.
In other words, the biggest tragedy of October 7th, the Supernova rave, was not a target, and the deaths in this tragedy seem to have been due to an unfortunate coincidence.
And the Hannibal directive absolutely plays a role. We don't actually know how many civilians died due to it. It could easily be hundreds. The only actor who could verify this is Israel, and they are not keen to do so.
Playing devil's advocate for consistency isn't racism. I'm not Israeli, not Jewish, this isn't my nation. I object to the reasoning.
You're defending a position that doesn't actually care about Palestinian lives. Iran has funded Hamas for decades not because it wants a Palestinian state: it wants the end of Israel. Those aren't the same goal. You've let a theocracy that hangs gay people and flogs women position itself as the voice of Palestinian liberation and you haven't noticed.
I've seen the footage of Shani Louk. German tattoo artist, half-naked, paraded on a truck while people celebrated. Then months of stories she was alive in a Gazan hospital, used to extort money from her family. I saw a Thai farmer gruesomely beheaded by a shovel while the perpetrator screamed with joy on camera. You want to call that resistance? Go ahead. I'll call it what it is.
Criticising Hamas doesn't mean supporting the IDF. Find one line in this thread where I defended an Israeli war crime. One.
You called me far-right. The far-right wants ethnic cleansing. I want a two-state settlement and both sides held to the same legal standard... which is apparently a controversial position in this thread.
Palestinians are people. Israelis are people. The children dying in Gaza are a catastrophe. So is raising children to believe their highest calling is killing their neighbour. You can hold both of those thoughts unless you've decided one side's dead children count and the other's don't.
While I agree, and I find that Israel is on the wrong side of history, I'm not entirely into seeing this whole matter as black and white.
I have the opinion that modern world history is mostly shaped around each countries/population traumas that echo through society till today.
E.g. the biggest trauma of Ukrainians aren't even the events that are playing recently, but the Holodomor that happened 100 years ago. On the other hand the biggest trauma on Russian side is still the German invasion and war of annihilation happened during the second world war. As both sides see themselves as the victims and see the other side as the aggressor (or collaborator) and none has ever taken a step back to recognize their actions, they simply cannot communicate.
The biggest trauma of China is the century of humiliation where western powers and Japan went above and beyond any decency in their actions. Thus, Chinese society and leadership is all about never being dictated conditions and terms by foreign powers. They see themselves as victims of events that they don't want to see ever again.
The jewish Israeli population biggest trauma are centuries if not millenia of animosity, racism and violence coming from any side, last but definitely not least the Holocaust. Thus Israel is all about security at all costs, even if it means bending any sign of human decency. Again, they see themselves as victims and their actions will always go in that direction.
Sadly many parts of the world, many countries, many societies, are simply too scarred and unable to take a step back from the victim mentality and recognize their own actions.
Israelis are unable to recognize they are Goliath and not David from the longest time, they are unable and unwilling to say sorry, the last Israeli leader that tried, got assassinated by one of his own.
The arabic/muslim population in the area too see themselves as victims of the post world war 2 events, and they are as well unable to recognize how scarred and traumatized is Israeli society from centuries of events, including modern ones where they had to survive against hostile Arab coalitions aimed to annihilate them.
So, without a generation of leaders able to recognize and understand the role of history and those traumas and empathize with the other sides we're trapped in those loops of aggression.
You’ve just explained my own thoughts better than I ever have been able to, especially what with the political minefield that is literally anything mentioned in your post. Brilliantly articulate. I have half a mind to commit your entire comments text to memory and just repeat it ad verbatim whenever I am asked about my opinions on these things.
you are simplifying too much - whats then US trauma in this case and all other cases of invasion and coups in the lat 75 years?
Maybe trauma you are talking about it's just excuse to control opinion of voters and manufacture consent but under the hood its just all about power and being rich (not always but in many cases).
I am not simplifying, and my lenses aren't an explanation for every world event.
Humoring the notion, America is a capitalist enterprise that put on the religious and humanist airs that were conveniently en vogue at the time of its founding, and which it always goes back to when its economic reality becomes too onerous. The contradiction baked into our existence is felt subconsciously by most, and there is a psychological toll taken in knowing that your society is built, in part, on hypocrisy, and having to be vigilant for when the other shoe inevitably drops, so that you can at least get out alive.
This is a great post. It really sheds light to basically all the modern conflicts. Thanks.
This really puts so many modern conflicts into perspective. Everyone sees themselves as victims. Unfortunately, a consensus on who is and isn't a victim will always be highly elusive.
One of the most sane and dispassionate takes I've seen. Kudos.
I agree that we should remember historical traumas, but I don't agree they suffice to explain international politics.
Take the Greeks (that's my people! Us!) and the Turkish. I guess people in the West don't remember this but the Israelis are not the only people in the Middle East who have a word that means "disaster" (Shoah, for the Israelis; Καταστροφή- Catastrophe for us), that when anyone says it everyone knows exactly which disaster is spoken of. They are not the only people who lost the land their ancestors inhabited for thousands of years (Ionia, for us Greeks), who lost their greatest city (Constantinople, the City), who lost their greatest temple that was turned into a Mosque (the Hagia Sophia). Us, Greeks, too, have suffered these ignominies at the hand of the Turkish. Our common history with the Turkish is one of war, destruction, violence and blood. So much blood.
Genocide? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_genocide Check. Ethnic cleansing? Check. Death marches through the deserts? Check, check, check.
And yet, since the Catastrophe, in 1922, we have been at peace with the Turkish, even through serious hot episodes in the Mediterrannean, like Cyprus. That's 100 years of peace, after 1500 years of history of war.
It can be done. The trauma can be overcome, if both sides agree to it. To quote none other than Moshe Dayan: if you want to make peace you talk to your enemies, not your friends.
The 1923 population exchange between Greece and Turkey has probably played a role in this. Having a pond between the majority of conflicting parties might cool things down a bit.
I wonder how Greek-Turkish relations would look like if both nations were stuck in a relatively small piece of land - say, the size of the European part of Turkey. And with Constantinople/Istanbul ethnically mixed in about 50:50 ratio.
It is a lot easier to conclude peace if both adversaries have a plenty of "their own" land to live on and can sorta-kinda ignore each other while doing so.
That's perfectly fair, and also pointed out by red75prime above. We were lucky that we could put a sea between us. There's probably other geopolitical peculiarities that can have the same effect though.
I should also note that the proximity of the Greek islands to the Turkish coast has also caused friction over the years.
Preach brother. Collective trauma traps us all
> The jewish Israeli population biggest trauma are centuries if not millenia of animosity, racism and violence coming from any side ... is all about security at all costs, even if it means bending any sign of human decency. Again, they see themselves as victims and their actions will always go in that direction.
I don't see this any different to terrorism apologia (the trauma of 1mn dead in Iraq and another million in Afghanistan, for example). I guess, if the leaders wear suits & ties and hide behind the garb of democracy, then we should all understand why military they command commit crimes against humanity.
- Bessel van der Kolk (author, The Body Keeps the Score: Brain, Mind, and Body in the Healing of Trauma).The problem isn't the "trauma". The problem is the excuse.
> they are as well unable to recognize how scarred and traumatized is Israeli society from centuries of events
First, 400mn Arabs (or 2bn+ muslims) aren't a monolith or brainless zombies. Second, the "centuries of events" is just European guilt. Nothing to do with the Arab world.
Extremely great post with detailed examples
> So, without a generation of leaders able to recognize and understand the role of history and those traumas and empathize with the other sides we're trapped in those loops of aggression.
The sad reality (imo) about this truth is that the qualities needed to be a leader aren't empathy. There was a vid about it which went more into detail but When you observe leaders, you find that they are extremely weird and sometimes psychopathic.
To me it also feels like if a leader is emphatetic towards the other part, other leaders more extreme would spring up saying that he's an enemy from within or something equivalent to it.
The empathy of the leader is one of the most disregarded qualities. I would go so far as to say that leaders aren't even empathetic towards the general population of their own nations/community sometimes.
It's really sad but the Empathy you mention and cowardice can look the same to many & the Empathatic leader would get booted out of/not given a chance.
For example, within America itself, I feel like John mccain was a good guy and I would consider him empathetic in the sense that I remember seeing interviews of him saying that he and Obama just have some minor differences in policy making when there were people attending his rallies asking that they don't feel safe about Obama.
I am just gonna say that This leader of republican party was lost for what is now Donald Trump.
Oh I just watched the rally/interview again[0], when he said that you don't have to be scared of Obama, he was audibly booed by the public. (But also they clapped once when he said later in the campaign that Obama was decent person?)
It isn't impossible to have empathetic leaders but I do think that perhaps as a civilization, we would need to take class act/honesty/integrity more into account than we take in the current system which to me all across the world sometimes feel like picking the lesser evil/not-greater-good at times though I can only speak for myself.
[0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JIjenjANqAk
[flagged]
I don't think parent is presenting an excuse. They are suggesting that generational trauma is one cause of conflict.
what US trauma supposed to be in this case? Only Americal Civil War and American Revolutionary War comes to my mind but have no clue how middle east mess could trigger those traumas?
The only traumas maybe related to money is ... Great Depression but it's not like somebody else was responsible for that
epolanski didn't mention US?
Well what I guess what else do you really do without historical materialism? Playing pop psychology on billions of people, its always quite bizarre.
[dead]
> The president of peace btw.
Europe is to blame, according to him.
As Ukrainian, I don't remember launching missiles on russia, or, in fact, any aggression towards russia. In its turn russia did recognize borders with Ukraine in multiple treaties, and on top of that security guarantees promised in exchange of 3rd by the size world nuclear arsenal.
Just a quick reminder, that Iranian and Hamas policy towards Israel is extermination. Palestine was never recognized by Israel or USA. Israel is not recognized by Iran.
So tell me, what parallels do you see between these conflicts? Human misery and destruction is hardly a common ground, and even in that, scale is incomparable.
I can't believe the winner of the FIFA Peace Prize would do such a thing.
I for one can no longer take the FIFA Peace Prize seriously.
Look up what the Iranian regime has done to his people and to others, including US and European countries, since 1979 and you'll understand that the only reason US allies are cautious and not fully behind this campaign is that toppling the regime means high uncertainty as to what would replace it...
I know some people weren't alive then, but the invasion of Iraq started off pretty good for the US... Sort of how Russia imagined it's march on Kiev would go (!3) 4 years ago.
What replaced Sadaam was the US, and that went horribly for everyone.
If you know the history of the Iraq War you would know a lot of the reasons it went bad was Iranian involvement
The war started in 1948 by Europeans attempting to attack and invade Palestine to grab their land to build their mediterranean resort homes. The war never stopped. There was no surrender documents signed. The foreign invaders have always been in the state of war. It's why their colonial outposts are required to have bomb shelters.
Not sure why you would consider October 7 an "insane horror" when the foreign invaders literally burned children alive in 1948 by throwing them into ovens, as happened in the Deir Yassin massacre. Or the rape camps of Tantura. There were 15,000 innocent civilians killed by the invaders when they started this war.
I still can't believe we have to fight Israel's war for them. First the Iraq war and now the Iran war.
> The war started in 1948 by Europeans attempting to attack and invade Palestine to grab their land to build their mediterranean resort homes.
Jewish people lived there for the past two thousands years. Hebron massacre by Arabs happened in 1929.
> It's why their colonial outposts are required to have bomb shelters.
I think they have bomb shelters to save their civilians from bombs.
> Not sure why you would consider October 7 an "insane horror" when the foreign invaders literally burned children alive in 1948 by throwing them into ovens, as happened in the Deir Yassin massacre. Or the rape camps of Tantura. There were 15,000 innocent civilians killed by the invaders when they started this war.
Interesting how you are totally fine with murder of civilians as long as they are the "right" kind of civilians.
> war started in 1948
It's the Middle East. The birthplace of civilisation. Everyone can legitimately claim everyone else started every conflict in the region because war in Mesopotamia and the Levant literally predates history.
At the end of the day I believe in the primacy of the living. Crimes committed by and against those alive today are infinitely more imporant than those committed by and against their ancestors. I've seen folks take this shit back to King Herod and the Parthians, and it's not a bad historical argument. (The Romans intervened.) It's practically counterproductive, however, inasmuch as focussing on blame versus harm reduction and prevention is counterproductive in any conflict resolution.
One of the separations between the rich and peaceful and the poor and permanently warring is in capacities to forgive. Japan wouldn't be a better place if they committed terrorist attacks against their American occupiers, or decided that they needed blood for Nagasaki and Hiroshima. And Americans wouldn't be happier if we decided to lob a nuke at the British in WWII for burning down our White House in the War of 1812. (France didn't ultimately profit from the Treaty of Versailles.)
> Not sure why you would consider October 7 an "insane horror" when
No. Don't do this to yourself. I get the temptation. But it is the path to becoming a monster. October 7 was an insane horror. So were other things. Atrocities aren't signed; they don't cancel out, just accumulate.
[flagged]
> (lots of word salad normalizing genocide)
If you're reading what I wrote as endorsing Israel's war you're exhibiting the problem with blind hate. You stop seeing the world as it is.
> It's OK to hate an entity
Sure. Hating an entity doesn't require you to endorse atrocities against its people.
> October 7 was not an insane horror. It was a perfectly fine response to such a monstrous foreign entity
One, you could literally change "October 7" to "the war in Gaza" and have the Israeli far right in a nutshell.
Two, I guess I respect you for being honest about what you believe. It's a clear position. Even if it's morally abhorrent. (You're saying killing children is okay if it's politically expedient.) But I guess there are enough people in that region who believe what you've said across various conflicts; herego this.
Since you are so concerned by October 7. Do you know how many of those killed were soldiers? Do you know how many were killed by the IDF?
> Do you know how many of those killed were soldiers and security personnel?
Do I need to?
If October 7 had solely engaged military targets, the moral contours of the war would have be clear. It didn't. I'd argue it couldn't. The political forces that sustained Hamas and Sinwar did not allow for targeted, strategic strikes. Just acts of vengeance played out for an audience. (Hamas doesn't have a place in a peaceful, prosperous Palestine.)
Like, let's reverse it. Do you know how many of those killed by the IDF are bona fide militants? I don't. But I also don't think that's germane to e.g. "the Israeli military opening fire on crowds of Palestinians as they tried to make their way to the fenced enclosure to get food" [1].
[1] https://www.cnn.com/2025/06/04/middleeast/israel-military-ga...
Yeah, that attitude is not new.
> "The point is that as soon as fear, hatred, jealousy and power worship are involved, the sense of reality becomes unhinged. And, as I have pointed out already, the sense of right and wrong becomes unhinged also. There is no crime, absolutely none, that cannot be condoned when ‘our’ side commits it. Even if one does not deny that the crime has happened, even if one knows that it is exactly the same crime as one has condemned in some other case, even if one admits in an intellectual sense that it is unjustified – still one cannot feel that it is wrong. Loyalty is involved, and so pity ceases to function."
It's not. It's the first time I'm seeing it so clearly–and, again, credit where it's due, honestly–on HN.
[flagged]
> you're going to be shocked, SHOCKED, to find out that 28% of Americans now support Hamas
No. The question is "in the Israel-Hamas conflict do you support more Israel or more Hamas?" That's different from supporting Hamas. Even I'd be on the fence about answering "more Hamas" over "more Israel," though I'd mostly be irritated at the false dichotomy and false equivalence the question implies.
(I'd guess 10 to 20% of Americans support Hamas because that's the fraction that support just about anything, from the flat Earth to the genocide of penguins or whatever.)
> that support for Hamas will only grow stronger as the elderly Americans that are still largely against Hamas die off and replaced by younger Americans that support Hamas
Dig deeper into the polls. It's a strong minority in Gen Z and Alpha. It's not commanding. And it reveals itself for what it is when you ask people to name their No. 1 issue.
I respect folks who have turned this into their pet issue. Ultimately, foreign policy isn't going to be front and centre in American politics unless there is a draft. (And most Americans aren't monsters.)
It doesn't matter if it's the #1 issue or not. What matters is the few % of people that cause tight elections to shift. And it was enough to cause Kamala Harris to lose the election. Israel's attack on Gaza was the primary reason Biden 2020 voters chose not to vote for Harris, per scientific polls (YouGov). And that was from 2 years ago. America has only become more pro-Hamas since.
You can defend the existence of the foreign genocidal state all you want but you really have to understand that Israel is cooked. There is no turning back. It's a dead state walking. And the vast majority of their base of support is in the elderly, which will all die off in 20 years.
> I guess Israel can play the "October 7th" card at least which was an insane horror.
The islamic republic of Iran has been slaughtering tens of thousands of peaceful protesters who don't want to live under sharia laws anymore. Hunting wounded in hospitals and executing them.
It's obvious there's a movement in Iran that tries to topple the islamist regime. In my city, in the EU, I see cars with iranian flags and I've seen iranian in exile call for the international community to do targetted strikes.
I'm not defending the strikes but let's not make it sound like the US is launching nukes on peaceful monks in Tibet either: we're talking about evil islamist regime that slaughtered tens of thousands of unarmed people a few weeks ago.
I was going to say it's false equivalence to compare the Russian attack on Ukraine which was peaceful with a newly installed democratic leader and Iran which has an iffy dictatorship slaughtering thousands of unarmed protestors and exporting terrorism all over with aspirations to make that nuclear.
That was obviously exaggerated, think about the planning and resources needed to execute a stadium worth of people across a country. Not possible in a few days without extreme preparation, or bodies rotting everywhere.
FIFA might be the one organization that can go toe to toe with Trump I’m corruption. And I mean that in the worst way possible. Qatar was using literal slave labor to get stadiums built and the organization just shrugged when informed like it was just another Tuesday.
He could drop a nuke on Greenland tomorrow and they’d probably say they don’t want the sport to be tangled in political disagreements and if anything the World Cup can help everyone heal.
People still believe October 7th attacks weren't intentionally allowed? There is a lot of legitimate debate on this topic as the security failures are unusual and are still officially being discussed in Israel.
I see no "smoking gun" for this yet, but yeah, there are a lot of indicators, such as alarm calls by military observers being ignored beforehand, IDF units having been moved from the Gaza envelope to the West Bank before, etc.
Of course, Netanyahu could counter those rumors by establishing a state commission if inquiry, but instead he fights tooth and nail to prevent this from happening...
Also, the official explanation how October 7 could have happened honestly makes no sense to me. Somehow Hamas suddenly gained super powers on that day and could break through the "containment" that ostensibly had been perfectly adequate before. And because of their mysterious newfound strength, it was also imperative to bomb Gaza to bits and impossible to go back to the security situation as it was before...
The one I can't get over is that when Netanyahu was speaking at the UN, he claimed they have hacked mobile phones in Gaza to force broadcast the speech.
Yet months of co-ordination and training between various disconnected groups / gangs / militias, was completely undetectable.
It's a well documented fact that Netanyahu has always wanted and actively supported Hamas leadership in order to have no reasons to sit at the table of with the PLA.
When the other side is led by what you can easily sell to the world as terrorists, you're by default the good guys.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_support_for_Hamas
> well documented fact that Netanyahu has always wanted and actively supported Hamas leadership
To be fair, this is also explained by the Delcy Rodriguez strategy: the bastard you know trumps the bastard you don't. Israel could have become complacent thinking they had a deal with Hamas and, as long as they kept the money flowing, the Palestinians had no rational reason to attack. (Which they didn't. October 7 was a stupid move.)
Well either utter incompetence of every part of military of israel, or planned to allow it to happen. They even removed most of the guards spread across the region, those who were left were often only with pistols from what I've heard. They were closely monitoring hamas training for exactly this just before it happened.
Sure, some incompetent russian fsb officer who got his place thanks to nepotism may miss that, but mosad, on border with one's mortal enemy? Give me a break, there is 0 logic and knowledge of the involved parties in such thinking.
But its expected, say soviet union went to great lengths to make state terror official and legal, justified and all by th books. Not sure for whom since all knew what chaotic terror was happening all the time and there was often no logic in who was next, but the face of the regime needed to have everything straight and square.
Anyway, those who actually care about the topic understand it well, its not some superbly hidden scheming bur rather facts in plain sight. The rest of folks simply don't care
> on border with one's mortal enemy
I have no special stake or knowledge of this, but Israel hasn't treated Gaza or Palestinians as their "mortal enemy"... more of a problematic-but-largely-contained source of rockets and hateful rhetoric, at least until 2023.
They have treated Palestinians as a pest to be exterminated since before Israel existed. Israels entire existence is based on the erasure of the Palestinian people.
There are five times as many Palestinians in Palestine-the-region as there were in 1960.
[flagged]
Incompetence can't be ruled out.
I've listened to podcasts discussing the Israel military. One thing that people need to realize is that the IDF and it's leaders are skewed incredibly young. The mandatory service paired with the fact that people often don't stay in service means that they have 30 year old colonels and 35 year old generals.
They don't have the sort of career and institution knowledge like the US military has.
If that was an attitude of Israel towards its people they wouldn't go to such length to return the hostages home.
Israel obviously consists of different groups with different incentives. We shouldn't undermine the years of protests by many citizens, some of which are still seeking justice from those responsible for the security failures (particularly Netanyahu).
People like you still spread stupid lies about it, but no one with any sense believes them. There is no legitimate debate on the subject, only propaganda, and it comes from Benjamin Netanyahu directly.
Obviously, it’s the same stupidity that “allowed” the 7th of October attacks to happen. These people are way too scared and hateful of Palestinians to conspire with them like this. They allowed it to happen through sheer incompetence. They just let their guard down, quite literally.
If they could actually cooperate well enough to work together on something like the 7th of October of attacks, which were under active planning for at least two years and involved thousands of highly trained men, don’t you think they’d be able to cooperate on something positive too?
What a pile of non-sense. I despise literally everyone in the Israeli government, but suggesting this was allowed by anyone in the government/military/intelligence is the lowest low form of ridiculous conspiracy theory.
Nothing like this is "officially discussed in Israel", unless you mean "repeatedly officially denied".
Careful people will call you an antisemite for even bringing this topic.
In Italy a famous jewish actor commenting a law that wants to make antisemitism illegal said it's a bit weird a former fascist minister gets to decide that he's antisemite.
https://www.ilgiornaleditalia.it/news/politica/765547/ddl-an...
Pax Romana peace.
if he has no consequences for this, and he won't
it would be very bad to be Cuba right now
considering when the midterms are and about how long it would take afterwards to move all the ships
I mean why would he stop with Iran?
All of the US is now a "constitution-free zone"
> it would be very bad to be Cuba right now
Yesterday Trump proposed that the US take over Cuba. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-administration/trump-...
Trump is basically a glorified realtor with the intellect of a single celled organism.
Do you support the Iranian regime?
Do Americans even read or care about Constitution anymore?
Congress declares War.
Even Bush sought out Congressional approval and had a resolution passed before invading Iraq.
These guys are speed running the fascist playbook. Disregarding laws is one step.
> Do Americans even read or care about Constitution anymore?
Supreme court does not, so why should random Americans?
It is not like the high but malleable ideals in it mattered. Its only use is to be able to claim in abstract "we have these freedoms and protection" while the court system renders them void in practice.
The hope would be if more Americans were reading it, and understanding, then they would hold leaders more accountable and we wouldn't even get in this situation. The founding fathers kind of assumed an educated population, even if debating and disagreeing, would come to better conclusions. This current method of "lets cut education so the population doesn't know what is going on" is really a long term plan for the religious right to take over. But they are thinking in decades and generations.
The core issue with constitutional irrelevan e is highly educated suprem court justices put in by highly educated heretage foundation.
Issue is not lack of education among people, it is ideology they sign up to.
What does it matter? There won't be any consequences for it. He can just do this now and then later the supreme court or congress will say something that also won't matter. The trade war wasn't legal, was struck down, yet is still happening.
Almost a quarter of Americans are functional illiterate, and it's getting worse for new generations
50%+ have below sixth grade reading comprehension
This thing is not actually getting worst "for generations". By available data, it was improving a lot for generations with only minor drop.
[dead]
Surely this was approved by the Board of Peace. /s
[dead]
[flagged]
And all that Israel did to the Palestinians before October 7th.
6 million kids? whole palestine has less total population, gaza has less than 1 million total population, no?
2 mil, actually. But not 6 million kids...
true, palestine 5m+, west bank 3m+, gaza strip 2m+, gaza city <1m.
palestine = west bank + gaza strip
gaza city ⊂ gaza strip
gaza = gaza strip
[flagged]
[flagged]
> Working towards war with Iran has been bipartisan US policy for decades now
Obama signed the Iran nuclear deal in July 2015 [1].
Biden didn't put any policy focus on Iran, in part becase, with the benefit of hindsight, it's difficult to distill any policy focus from that Presidency following Covid. But he also didn't ratchet up pressure in any material way [2]. (And to be clear, I'm not saying that's good.)
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Comprehensive_Plan_of_Ac...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93United_States_rel...
Obama is the one outlier here. As far as I'm aware, all other presidents since '79 saw this as inevitable if not desirable.
> all other presidents since '79 saw this as inevitable if not desirable
I think it's helpful to distinguish Cold War-era Presidents from the others, but that obviously limits the sample.
That only cuts Carter and Reagan, and I have a hard time ignoring Carter given all the Iran issues he had to deal with.
Islamic lunatic ayatollahs, who've shown a willingness to massacre their own people, with nukes?
Can't imagine why that would be a bad thing ...
I don't much understand that about this thread. Yes Trump bad. Yes, US should not get into another war (although in here, arguably this may avoid war, and yes, that's been said before)
But when it comes to the ayatollahs at the business end of the missiles: defending them? I mean, I understand socialists brought them to power, but still: for these particular ayatollahs, having their insides spread over a few football fields ... can't happen to a more deserving bunch.
If Iran is unhappy with their government, they can deal with it. It is not a US problem in the slightest. Going to war with another country puts Americans at risk.
> if Iran is unhappy with their government, they can deal with it. It is not a US problem
If Tehran contented itself with oppressing its own, it probably wouldn't garner too much attention. The problem is its regional proxies constantly causing a mess. It lacks anyone willing to come to its aid right now in large part because of that foreign policy.
Which successful country does not covertly monitor and try to influence the politics of neighboring non-ally countries ?
Small not, but the US hasn't declared war. That requires an act of congress, and congress has continued to neutered itself more and more for decades.
AFAIK the only country that dropped a nuke on their own soil (that luckily didn't explode) is the USA.
To the contrary the Ayatollah has (now had) a formal and public fatwa against nuclear weapons.
Not sure how you can say that considering that he did it without Congressional approval? It’s literally all him.
Congress hasn't publicly supported the attack. That is an extremely important step, and required for any operation lasting more than 30 days if I'm not mistaken, but it doesn't mean a majority of Congress hasn't already made clear they do support this.
Even some of the most "left" Dems, like Elizabeth Warren, were giving Trump an emphatic standing ovation as he talked about Iran in the SotU [0].
That was literally days after Warren posted on social media about "not sending our military into another endless war in the Middle East" [1]. Look at the comments on the post - they all believe her. It's really very silly.
0 - https://x.com/i/trending/2026793972086222987
1 - https://www.facebook.com/ElizabethWarren/posts/pfbid0BCLJaUv...
Yup. The Jeffries and Schumer have also signaled not that they don't support war with Iran, but they don't like being left out of the loop on planning.
This is an unfortunately a bipartisan and well supported action by congress. Dems seem to mostly just be mad about procedure rather than the results. Very similar to how they protested the Venezuela actions.
You gotta be kidding
He's right though. He's calling out that this is policy, not just Trump.
Still however pulls the trigger commits the crime.
Yes both parties are war mongers but I don't think that lets Trump off the hook even a little. This wasn't necessary or inevitable. Trump's not even really trying to justify it.
[flagged]
"We haven't killed as many as the totalitarian religious fundamentalists" is a really shitty justification for your behavior.
So what? You still believe you're the world police?
I am a simple man: this regime has threatened my family, shot at some of them; it has killed soldiers from my country some time ago (during terrorists attacks in Lebanon); arrested my wife for a loose hijab, before taking her into a van and beating her up. Luckily she was spared the "rape" which is allowed under islam in those very convenient circumstances were it is halal.
That didn't really follow the "international rights" did it ?
You don't?
idk, some people start to describe your actions as "theatrical micro militarism", big words, big missiles, big postures, 0 impacts on anything meaningful... unless it comes to bully your allies, there you're very strong. Trump and his friends still live in the 60s and haven't noticed the world is changing fast, especially when it comes to how the US is perceived
[flagged]
What I would like people to understand is that this isn't a partisan issue. As bad as Trump is, American foreign policy is uniparty. Just look at the rhetoric from the Democratic Party leadership on an Iran strike. You have the likes of Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries quibbling over the procedure not the policy, saying Congress needs to approve action, not that that action is belligerent or unwarranted.
October 7 happened under a Democratic president and continued essentially unchanged under Trump. Biden consistently lied about "red lines" and seeing a ceasefire [1].
The problem here isn't one party or one persident, it's America's commitment to imperialism, of which Iran is just one aspect. Since WW2 especially there has been so much regime change done or aided by the US as well as military action, it has it's own Wikipedia page [2].
And what did Kamala Harris promise to change about Biden's Middle East policy? Absolutely nothing [3]. It's a big part of why she lost and the DNC don't want to admit that so they're trying to cover up the 2024 autopsy [4].
Don't fool yourself into thinking anything would be different under a Kamala Harris administration.
[1]: https://internationalpolicy.org/publications/the-biden-admin...
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_r...
[3]: https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2024/8/8/biden-vs-harris-...
[4]: https://www.axios.com/2026/02/22/dnc-2024-autopsy-harris-gaz...
> The problem here isn't one party or one persident, it's America's commitment to imperialism, of which Iran is just one aspect.
Iran is as imperialistic if not more. Why you are against US "imperialism" but for Islamic Republic's one?
Resisting the imperialist goals of the US itx proxies doesn't make you imperialist. It's not only moral. It's generaly permissible under international law.
Take for example the UAE, which has been hit by the Iranian response, who is essentially singlehandedly responsible for the genocide in South Sudan and it does so with the blessing of the US.
The UAE arms the RSF using arms they get from the US and steal Sudanese gold, which they launder through Dubai and Switzerland.
But let's assume, for the sake of argument, that everything Iran has done and is doing is "imperialism" (which, again, it is not), how do you even begin to argue "if not more [than the United States]"? US imperialism touches virtually every country on Earth. Iran at best has regional influence.
> It's generaly permissible under international law.
This is false, and you know it. But I will challenge you for others to see. Please point me to a statue of the international law that makes this "resistance" legal.
> Take for example the UAE, which has been hit by the Iranian response, who is essentially singlehandedly responsible for the genocide in South Sudan and it does so with the blessing of the US.
Interesting. You completely ignored that Saudis back the other side (SAF), which committed no fewer atrocities than RSF and co. Why do you single out UAE?
> The UAE arms the RSF using arms they get from the US and steal Sudanese gold, which they launder through Dubai and Switzerland.
I won't argue with that, but this is not the complete picture, and the two main warring sides in Sudan are supported by US-friendly regimes in the region.
> But let's assume, for the sake of argument, that everything Iran has done and is doing is "imperialism" (which, again, it is not), how do you even begin to argue "if not more [than the United States]"? US imperialism touches virtually every country on Earth. Iran at best has regional influence.
Two things:
1. Does the fact that IR's imperialism is regional, and anti-US, and not global makes it good?
2. It is imperialism -- IR through its militant proxies suppresses independent development of multiple states in the region. Can you explain to me how this is a good thing?
> This is false, and you know it. But I will challenge you for others to see
Sorry but it's 100% true [1][2][3]. REsisting foreign occupation and colonialism is well-recognized in several UN conventions.
> Interesting. You completely ignored that Saudis back the other side (SAF),
You mean the saudis back the actual government of South Sudan and not the rebels who are looting the country? Are you really trying to equate the two?
But let's, for the sake of argument, also condemn the Saudis in this case. This should convince you that the US only cares about selling arms and doesn't give a rats ass about genocide. That's my point.
> Does the fact that IR's imperialism is regional, and anti-US, and not global makes it good?
No, it makes it lesser. "If not more" was your quote. Definitionally, it's not. It's Middle East vs the entire globe.
> It is imperialism
It's resistance. Iran up until 1953 was a liberal democracy and the only reason it isn't is because of US interference, imperialism and adventurism.
> Can you explain to me how this is a good thing?
Resisting the imperial ambitions of a global hegemonic superpower is definitionally good.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_resist
[2]: https://www.un.org/dppa/decolonization/en/about
[3]: https://treaties.un.org/doc/source/docs/A_RES_2625-Eng.pdf
> Sorry but it's 100% true [1][2][3]. REsisting foreign occupation and colonialism is well-recognized in several UN conventions.
Colonization and occupation is not the same as "imperialism". Please show me where "imperialism" is regulated by the international law. Second, resistance still has to comply with international laws. So, blowing up a bus with kids going to school is not resistance, but terrorism.
> You mean the saudis back the actual government of South Sudan
The government of South Sudan committed atrocities of the same scope as the RSF! Are you letting it slide because SAF is official government of Sudan??
> No, it makes it lesser. "If not more" was your quote. Definitionally, it's not. It's Middle East vs the entire globe.
I would argue it is more.
> It's resistance. Iran up until 1953 was a liberal democracy and the only reason it isn't is because of US interference, imperialism and adventurism. > Resisting the imperial ambitions of a global hegemonic superpower is definitionally good.
I see now. As long as it opposes US, it does not matter who are the victims of the opposition because the opposition is against the US.
The current Iranian regime is in power thanks to US imperial interests. Comical amount of ignorance.
Does it make Iran less imperialist because of that?
Its the irony that US imperialism is the cause for this iranian "imperialistic" regime.
It seems to me that IR always had a choice, but they made the one to be imperialistic. So...
It's comical that you're even comparing Iran to the us in this aspect.
I’m not sure what would have happened under a Dem administration. I’m not sure I’m against action in Iran.
But one the whole like precedents of the Trump Administration, was that we were going to ignore foreign entanglements, even if they could be perceived as being in our interests.
It’s wild to me how much Trump seems like Bush 2.0 when I think Trump was something of a reaction to Bush 1.0.
"I’m not sure what would have happened under a Dem administration."
Hard to say. Under Obama we got the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.
It is amazing that anyone took his campaign claims at face value. There's an extensive record of him just saying whatever gets cheers/votes/money.
The dirty little secret here is that the Democratic establishment and thus many Democratic politicians like what's happening. They just don't like how it's being done.
What's they're doing is both bad policy (IMHO) and bad politics. Why is it bad politics? Because this military action is deeply unpopular and you cannot outflank the Republican Party on the right about American imperialism. Remember when Kamala Harris promised the "most lethal" military? What does that mean? And why?
But hte other reason this is bad politics is for the reason you state: it cedes the political ground of being the "peace president" to Trump. Memories are short because he did exactly the same thing in 2015 eg [1][2] and again in 2020 eg [3]. The last one is particularly funny because Biden did exactly what Trump promised to do but the Trump still beat Biden over the head for it.
There's no consistency in any of this. Trump was never a peace president. We knew it was a lie at the time. We know it's a lie now. Nobody cares.
But when the supposed opposition party mirrors his policy positions and offers no resistance to anything that's happening, who are voters going to listen to? The guy who talks about peace, even though he's lying, or the guy who says nothing about peace and just thinks Trump should've consulted with Congress but nothing otherwise should change? Or, worse, sometimes Trump isn't being tough enough?
Then Senator Joe Biden in 1986 called Israel "the best $3 billion we make" and if Israel didn't exist we'd invent on to protect our interests [4] while Ronald Reagan's Secretary of State called Israel an unsinkable aircraft carrier in the region.
The JCPOA was a rare W for Obama (who was otherwise the Deporter-in-Chief and the Drone King). Trump of course dismantled it at the behest of the Adelsons. Did Biden reinstate it? Of course not.
The best case for an establishment Democratic administration now is to do nothing while promising nothing and reversing nothing that ultimately brings in the next Trump, just as Biden/Harris did in 2024.
That's the long version of why I say there's no difference. In the short term there might be. Even that's debatable of course. But long term the ratchet effect only gets worse.
[1]: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/12/donald-...
[2]: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/oct/13/donald-trump...
[3]: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/oct/08/donald-trump...
[4]: https://www.c-span.org/clip/senate-highlight/user-clip-joe-b...
What planet do you live on that you think it’s a secret? It’s bright as day. It’s why I support the Democratic Party. Of course they support this action, it’s probably the right thing to do.(Though you’re right I don’t Trust Hegseth to do this right. He’s like Hubris walking and at least one report said the didn’t have the support of the generals)
One of the reasons I didn’t support Trump because he was the America First non-interventionist. I’m lamenting the fact that Trump’s supporters who were betrayed. It’s Trump who’s the one who did nothing and will bring in more Democrats, or the other way around.
Trump has been publicly mulling over an attack on Iran for several weeks. It’s been headline news everywhere.
I did not not notice any opinions, one way or the other, from other American politicians. Correct me if I’m wrong ( with link, of course. )
I guess we can laud Rep. Jim McGovern [1].
[1] https://archive.is/LvDf2
Thank you for that, I hadn’t seen it.
So much of both parties is actually alike, underneath a window dressing of differences (eg woke/anti woke), and a complicit media which does its best to amplify and brainwash people into believing. When it comes to policies that actually affect the elites, the deep state military industrial complex/intelligence services or financial interests, it is a uniparty. Look at how Obama continued the war on terror for example, after running on “hope and change”.
I am curious what your plan would be for Obama to extricate us from the GWOT and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Several military leaders expressed surprise at how gung-ho Obama was with foreign policy regarding the gwot. He literally executed an American citizen via drone. He didn’t even pay lip service to hope and change. Dubya also ran on a non-interventionist platform, and Trump ran on “drain the swap” and non-interventionism as well.
Anyway this is missing the wood for the trees. The point is, the uniparty very much exists, despite the downvotes. Foreign policy, bailing out banks, bowing down to the military industrial complex are very much remarkably consistent uniparty positions.
I am curious what your plan would be for Obama to extricate us from the GWOT and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan.
How about just bailing and having people falling of planes? Why would there need to be a good way to "extricate" from a ludicrous mess?
Without a doubt it's a "least worst" scenario. The best solution is to not empower the people who got us there. A distant second is to not give them back control eight years later.
I'm still interested to hear of a better c.2009 peace plan.
You say that like US and Israel hit Iceland or Portugal. Like, Iran wasn't source of terror on Middle East, funding terrorist groups like Hamas, Hezbolla and Houthi. Like, Iran didn't make "death to Israel, death to America" their national idea.
Remind us of Ukrainian rocket attacks on Russian cities, that provoked Ruso-Ukrainian war.
You can't not know all of this, so you're either a hamas/russian shill or a useful idiot.
Israel makes sure Hamas is funded, are they a valid target now?
Are you talking about the support Israel provided for Gaza for decades, like electricity and water? They had good intentions, I would give Israel second chance.
About Netanyahu making sure Hamas receive money to make sure Palestine can't be unifies under PLO, you know the old divide and conquer strategy?
I really hope our Government seeks out all these terrorists and Iran boosters on Hacker News who work in high tech. It’s a supply chain risk and none of them should be working.
>I guess Israel can play the "October 7th" card at least which was an insane horror.
More than twice as many people died in Puerto Rico during Hurricane Maria than on October 7th.
My regard is thus: lobs less than half an intercontinental ballistic roll of paper towels at Tel Aviv
>And at the double standards applied to Russians and Israelis in their wars of aggression.
Russians invading Ukraine is NOT the same at all. You lefties are running Reddit and now HN. I am done. So done.
"Peace through strength"
That's the policy being followed here. If you remember back a few weeks, Iran killed likely 30,000 of its own citizens. On top of that, they will not negotiate about medium and short-range missiles or stopping of nuclear production.
A power like that that happily goes after it's neighbors, directly or indirectly is a threat to everyone.
Applying those particular criticisms to Iran and not Israel is a special kind of irony given the past ~75 years (but especially the last 2-3), and when the latter is presently attacking the former unprovoked.
> and when the latter is presently attacking the former unprovoked.
Did you miss the whole “axis of resistance” funded and driven by Iran?
And what exactly does Iran feel the need to "resist" against?
Islamic Republic sees itself as a vehicle to spread Islamic revolution around the world.
Just listen to their internal rhetoric, watch who they find and why, and it is clear. However, since it’s Trump who is bombing IR, people will defend the IR regardless of what the IR stands for.
>A power like that that happily goes after it's neighbors, directly or indirectly is a threat to everyone.
Is the US a threat because of its actions towards Venezuela?
Yes
Tough news day for anyone who has a difficult time holding contradictory ideas in their mind. Pretty sure that includes myself.
On the one hand, Trump is awful for the USA, and the world.
On the other hand, there is a possibility that the freedom-wanting citizens of Iran finally have a slight chance of achieving their goal.
The chance of something truly positive happening seems low. However, as someone who has, for years, watched what happens in Iran via the lens of https://old.reddit.com/r/newiran, I am allowing myself the slightest amount of hope. Iranian people deserve it.
Of course, there is a large chance of this blowing up into something really bad for everyone.
edit: This Ukrainian is currently live streaming with OSINT, and his takes align with many of my actual realist thoughts:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUdeA0zukq4
Are all our foreign policy decisions now made in Tel Aviv to suit Israel?
Sure seems that way. I don't really see how this military action is justified from a US perspective. Or even from an Israeli one. The most likely justification is that the leadership of the US and Israel are a little bit unhinged and want a war to distract from domestic issues.
Not only is it unjustified, attacking during a negotiation seriously undermines future negotiations. This is a massive self face punching exercise.
Israel has even killed a Hamas negotiator in 2024 during deliberations, and attempted to kill another one in 2025.
I mean they literally shot a child and watched him bleed to death while creating a wall to prevent an ambulance getting to him soooo.
But for some reason the Western world only sees the evil things Hamas does and handwaves IDF.
They're both evil.
Source: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpqwv9vvzx9o
Though I suppose you could say he's lying, it's staged etc. In the same way that the religious attribute every good thing to their god and every bad thing to their devil.
Was there really a negotiation? It seems like US is giving them an ultimatum, stop nuclear enrichment and ballistic missile production or well hit you
"This is America, you can always cut a deal"
- Dutch
Don't fool yourself and others, attacking during negotiation is part of the negotiation.
Netanjahu is old and wants to secure his 'legacy' by being credited for dismantling Iran, knowing Trump will back him both because he's been fed BS and because the Israelis have enough kompromat to sink him. There's no 'rational' justification for this attack, only madness and huge egos.
What kompromat would even affect Trump at this point? He's been proven to be deep in bed with a literal pedophilic cabal of elites, what on Earth else could they have on this guy that would affect anything?
A literal video of him doing what most of us think he likely did with this pedophilic cabal of elites could likely still do some damage.
Or perhaps there's still worse things we cannot imagine? With these people, one can never be too sure.
Well, it's plausibly justified because the US considers a strong regional ally like Israel a valuable asset to have in the Middle East and if Israel is a regional hegemon [1] then all the better.
There have been many arguments that the US' support of Israel goes against US interests [2], but that really makes no sense. It's not just Trump who has to be convinced to start a war for Israel, it's the entire defense establishment in the US.
And also in Israel. If fighting half a dozen wars all at once was really that bad for Israel, surely, someone would have put a stop in it.
Surely.
_____________
[1] Got that term from J. Mearsheimer, if you were wondering.
[2] Particularly the Tucker Carlson - Judge Napolitano - Col. Daniel Davies continuum of mostly conservative podcast hosts. Or those are the ones I follow closely anyway. They're all convinced it's all "because of the lobby".
Why is Israel a valuable asset?
US is valuable Israel asset
[flagged]
If you're talking about Israel, why choose to move there then? Few Israelis have long-running roots in the country, it's mostly recent immigrants or their children.
This feels a lot like the people building a home next to an airport and then complaining about the noise.
Besides, are you sure "your house" wasn't stolen from someone? That's hardly uncommon in Israel.
Israel is 80 years old, I was born here and I’m 25 years old. The funny thing is my parents immigrated from Russia so you probably won’t want me there either (me too). Your argument is bad.
I feel like you're just repeating my point here rather than criticizing my argument in any way.
Why should anyone be opposed to you living in Russia?
Because I’d have been used as a cannon fodder in the war in Ukraine. And then you’d criticize me for being a Russian soldier.
Anyway your argument is bad in multiple layers, I don’t have any other passport and I live in a home that is younger than 80 years as most Israelis do
> I don’t have any other passport
You don't need one, it is very easy to emigrate to many western countries as an Israeli passport holder. There's also a chance you qualify for one of the EU citizenship schemes for jewish descendants. You don't have to choose to live in an apartheid state.
At least if you only held a Russian passport you could plausibly claim that it's somewhat difficult to move anywhere nice.
> I live in a home that is younger than 80 years as most Israelis do
I guess that makes it better. Truly, a shining example of Israeli moral superiority.
I can easily find ownership records going back more than 500 years for the land I live on. Odds are it'd be trivial to go even further.
What about the land you live on? Who owned it 100 years ago and how'd it end up in your possession? How do you think those records would tend to look in Israel? What kind of stories do you think they would tell? Would it be a good look for Israeli people?
My grand grandparent had a factory and a mansion in Poland , which was stolen by the nazis. My family moved with 0 assets to Israel to rebuild themselves. Will you please pay me the sum lost with dividends so I can return to Poland?
The entire continent of North America changed hands in the last 250 years many European lands changed hands in the last 150 years, some Israeli lands changed hands in the last 80 years, why should only we open our records?
The Palestinian people exist and have very real and justified grievances.
There's hardly anything comparable in Europe.
The Romani people. Perhaps even Jews, depending on attitudes towards Israel.
Probably other groups who are even less visible, so we don't know about the challenges they face. The 19th century push for nation states has marginalized and tried to erase many groups.
I think it's pretty telling how Europeans treat those people now, and how Israeli people treat Palestinians today.
Some of us learned to be better.
wake me up when Spain has let their minorities a path for self determination and when you do something about the savages that loot and destroy everything in your previous held colonies like Wagner and the Russian African Corpus
Ah, so now Israel treats Palestinians like Spain treats Catalans?
I think we might live on different planets.
Ok, I’m for building them a better future, we’re on agreement in that
Do you disagree that there's a good chance that by choosing to live and pay taxes in Israel you're going to have a net negative effect on the future of the Palestinians over your lifetime?
You hold me to inhuman standards you do not uphold in your personal life. The current government is bad for me and bad for the Palestinians I strive for a better one, and I’m here to stay
I absolutely do hold myself to the same standards of not living and paying taxes in Israel.
Thanks god, what a contribution to the world! Hope you having a nice time in this historic tiny minuscule moment of peace your continent is having, while you sit on an economy based on generations that robbed entire continents naked and then benefited from child labor of those continents! But in this tiny point of peace you don’t dedicate any portion of your life to help 3rd world countries or any global causes like the environment But tell me to move one of your countries that have right wing parties rising in the polls because some tiny percent of your population became Muslim. You will watch with me your politicians throw away this high morality you hold the second a Russian missile hit the ground in Western Europe and you with them
> You will watch with me your politicians throw away this high morality you hold the second a Russian missile hit the ground in Western Europe and you with them
What are you implying? It's totally fine to defend yourself against aggressors.
The problem is that in the Israel-Palestine conflict, Israel has always been the aggressor.
Your comment is exactly what Hamas militants say to themselves and what far right Israelis say to themselves.
Oh Drop down from your high horse, let’s ask you what have you done for example for the environment have you quit your job to join a cause to for the environment? Have you stopped buying things from china? Have you completely stopped consuming fast fashion?
I won’t leave my friends and family and rather fight for the values of this country from here
> I won’t leave my friends and family and rather fight for the values of this country from here
The nazis justified the holocaust as a "defense of their values" as well.
Nazi values are not my values, nor is any sort of death
I can't commment on your values because I don't know you but I can confidently say that zionist values are nazi values. Just listen to your own government leaders like Ben gvir or likund writings. literally word for word sounds like something Hitler and leaders of the nazi party would have said with [search replace arayan -> jew.]
here's some quotes. please tell me, hitler or gvir
"We have to speak honestly. That there are many, many ___ – I didn't say all the ___, but a lot of __ who are not loyal to the ____. Undoubtedly, their vote is endangering ____, … Any normal country would not let them vote. Unfortunately, we are allowing hundreds of thousands of people who are disloyal to ____ to vote in the elections... "
"I am unequivocally against executing the ____ murderer of ____ and in favor of killing the ____ murderers of _____"
"There are many ____ who are disloyal and those who are not loyal should not be here.""
Marine La Pen has almost won the elections in France? Is all French society rotten?
I rather dislike her, but on it's worst day a Marine Le Pen-led government in France wouldn't even come close to doing anything nearly as bad as Israel does every day.
That’s not because French society is different than Israeli society, it’s because French society cards are much better. It has far more stable economy and political system because of hundreds of years of colonialism and wars in Europe which render France the Resourceful state which it is today, if Marine La Pen could rise to almost win the election because of migration imagine what could happen if France was surrounded with states that host militants that want to anhilate it and stand attacks like the 7th of October (1,200 killed and raped in one day + parts of the country occupied for couple of days). Instead you chose to sit in your high horse attributed to you by previous generations that looted and killed anything in sight and after that somehow built a liberal society you have contributed nothing to, and you then ask me to leave my country instead of recognizing liberal people exist in both sides of the Israeli Palestinian conflict and they’re your allies
>Oh Drop down from your high horse, let’s ask you what have you done for example for the environment have you quit your job to join a cause to for the environment? Have you stopped buying things from china? Have you completely stopped consuming fast fashion?
I hope this particularly weak whataboutism helps you feel better about your indefensible moral position.
> fight for the values of this country from here
Apartheid being one of the core values worth fighting for, apparently.
Haha you literally asking me to leave my roots and friends and family and I have a weak arguments? Your arguments detached from reality.
I cut my salary to be involved politically, I believe in a future of peace. You can rest assured I engage in what’s right far more than you
> I believe in a future of peace
What does that look like to you?
I'm sure Hamas would say the same, it's just about how that peace is reached and how it looks like in the end. The typical Israeli vision of peace isn't any better than the typical Palestinian vision of peace.
I’m not a politician nor all the information is available to me on what can be done and what not
My moral compass says the following - 1. First of all securing our own democracy from all the internal authoritarian movements 2. Creating a situation were any Palestinian can live respectfully, feed their family and get education
From there state decision should be far more easier.
> 1. First of all securing our own democracy from all the internal authoritarian movements
perfectly reasonable ask. 3 years ago, I would have been perfectly fine if they demonstrated interest in that. Instead we have people like Ben gvir openly spout ethnosupremacist vitriol that would make hitler blush. Now my instagram is full of that man touring prisons where he brags about executing people who clearly show signs of torture. (and this is what they are COMFORTABLE SHOWING) between that and his approval ratings (60% of israelis want to relocate Palestinians somewhere else Its clear that the whole society is rotten from the top down.
frankly, I just want this madness to end.
> First of all securing our own democracy from all the internal authoritarian movements
Is that possible? Especially given the birth rate differences between the genuine religious nutjobs and normal people?
Peace for Hamas is eradicating all the Jews.
Peace for Israelis is coexistence. Look at egypt or Jordan for reference.
So why hasn't Israel just been granting all Palestinians citizenship?
It's not really about coexistence, is it? Rather than existing together, it's at best about existing separately.
>Peace for Hamas is eradicating all the Jews.
Which is a perfectly natural position considering the historic relationship here.
Why? First of all, we tried to give citizenship to Palestinians in East Jerusalem, they refuse.
Second, are you suggesting to annex Gaza and th West Bank, and giving them citizenship? That means the come election, Hamas would be the biggest party in the Knesset, revoke all democratic rights, and create a sharia state. That will be the end of the only democracy in the Middle East.
So Palestinians who effectively live under Israeli governance shouldn't be given a vote because their political opinions are wrong in your opinion?
What do you mean by effectively under Israeli governance? In Jerusalem they refuse citizenship. In the West Bank they are Palestinian citizens, in Gaza they are Gazan citizens, not my fault that both sides chose a dictatorship 20 years ago.
> Why should anyone be opposed to you living in Russia?
I don't know. Why did the Cossacks oppose Jews living in Russia?
Founded 80 years ago on stolen land.
Your parents "immigrated" from Russia to steal land. You should be blaming your parents. Your argument is bad.
Is this what every American tell themselves when they wake up in the morning? Or that what every Arab says to himself outside of Yemen, Saudi and Oman?
Yes every morning I wake up and think, why are my tax dollars going towards a parasitic entity who has taken complete control over our government to fight it's wars for them when we can barely afford basic necessities at home.
So Texas should be returned to Mexico, right?
This works so much better when there are living people who care.
So we just need to wait until people stop caring?
I mean, by the letter of things I am assuming that Jason is supporting the genocide of Palestinians.
Nobody living would care anymore, I guess.
> I mean, by the letter of things I am assuming that Jason is supporting the genocide of Palestinians.
> Nobody living would care anymore, I guess.
You might want to brush up on HN's guidelines if you think that these comments are acceptable here:
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.htmlI often find that when I'm criticising something to be specific about what; in this case, which guideline you think I am in violation of.
Given the quote from Jason:
> This works so much better when there are living people who care.
What's the strongest interpretation of this given the context?
There's two ways to make this a reality:
1) Stop them caring
2) Stop them living
Given that the international community has been pushing hard for nearly a century for option 1; I'm guessing Jason means option 2.
I'm not sure, maybe you can find a way to express it without breaking HN guidelines.
Your accusation was way off-base and deliberately offensive. You are capable of making the same point without stooping down the hierarchy of disagreement, so do it.
I am, let's leave my comment for the mods then.
Yeah that Venezuela, Iraq and Afghanistan things are definitive proof all Americans wars are fought because of Israel
This is your answer? Just leave my country? Well if it’s so bad for the Palestinians here why won’t they just leave as well?
It was their country before you guys showed up with guns and kicked them out.
The only reason it still exists is because of a massive propaganda machine designed to misrepresent the whole situation to the American people who's tax dollars are bankrolling it.
Ah! We’re going with history. Awesome. This country was Jewish before Islam even existed, according to many, many, many archeological findings. So is your position is to exile all non Jews from Israel?
The majority of you are descendents of european converts cosplaying as middleasterners.
That said, I support jews who were there before 1950s and the ones who are actually willing to make peace with palestinans and live alongside without an apartheid ethnostate. They are welcome to live in Israel and I wish them peace.
The rest of you who are defending or taking part in this genocide should absolutely be exiled.
that answer your question?
Amazing answer, all wrong.
Jews maintained their tradition and lineage for 2 thousand years. So much so that you can identify European Jewish heritage with a DNA test.
Second, half of the Israeli Jews were ethnically cleansed from Arabic and Muslim countries.
And thank you for having the 1950 cutoff, since my family came to Israel before that.
>Second, half of the Israeli Jews were ethnically cleansed from Arabic and Muslim countries.
And they should rightly blame European Jews for inciting this.
That this would happen as a response to the actions European Jews were taking in Palestine was completely predictable, but they didn't really care.
Are you blaming Jews for being ethnically cleansed?
> Second, half of the Israeli Jews were ethnically cleansed from Arabic and Muslim countries.
And the solution to that was to create an apartheid state where you forced palestinians to live as second class citizens in their ancestral home?
Last I checked, there are plenty of jews in morocco and Iran. I've met a few.
> And thank you for having the 1950 cutoff, since my family came to Israel before that.
Glad that you found a loophole that lets you defend literal genocide while clinging to your land claim as if that was the part I had a major problem with. you certainly got me there.
You created the cutoff rule, not me.
Plenty Moroccan Jews in Morocco - 300,000 in 1950, 2,250 in 2026.
Iran - 150,000 in 1950, 15,000 in 2026.
If you agree that 90% leaving is not ethnic cleansing, than say the same for Palestinians.
> You created the cutoff rule, not me.
Given a choice between saying you don't support the genocide of the palestinian people and being there before the 1950's, you chose the later. you do understand how that makes you look right? like I'm shocked at your lack of self awareness here.
You are perfectly welcome to be a racist piece of shit. its your right I guess. but don't turn around and act like you're the victim when everyone hates you.
> Plenty Moroccan Jews in Morocco - 300,000 in 1950, 2,250 in 2026.
> Iran - 150,000 in 1950, 15,000 in 2026.
Its definitely ethnic cleansing and it shouldn't have happened either. I wish we stood up to stop it back then. I didn't say anything about it back then because I wasn't alive back then to speak out against it. I'm alive now and THIS genocide that your people are committing is what I'm speaking out against because Im against genocide. I know there are other genocides going around in the world but this one is being funded with MY tax dollars.
So here’s the incredible part. Everybody cares about the Palestinians well being, but they dont care about offering reparations for the Jews.
I don’t see you calling all Muslim and European countries to return all stolen land and assets to Jews, and promising them full rights.
So for Palestinians - we have to fix whats been done.
For Jews - its history and we can’t fix it.
Palestinians literally need to ask you people for permission in order to leave.
You can just leave, you have a decent passport and can easily move to Europe where you don't have to worry about Iranian missiles.
First of all, I literally can’t. I can only get a tourist visa which is valid for 60 days.
Second, Israel tried to negotiate with countries to move willing gazans, but most countries refused. And everyone called it ethnic cleansing.
You probably never lived in a democracy.
Like Iran? Or Gaza? Or Ramallah? Or Lebanon? Or Syria? Or turkey?
Like people who live in Iran or did you live in Gaza? Average joes pay the price. Bibi, on the other hand, needs to keep any war going lest he some day goes to trial.
I’m willing to pay the price to achieve peace. I know I have defense and fortifications (and if your in Europe, you most likely have the same defenses) and can endure. Iran and Gaza have 0 defenses, and yet the chose to start a war.
This endless self-victimization is so unbecoming.
Having a ballistic missile land on my house - self victimizing.
Creating a totally new definition for refugees which can be inheritable - not self victimizing?
Learning from the best! The middle east spirit
I am not convinced that Israel is such an important ally.
I suspect a fourth column.
Israel is not an ally, it's the puppet. What is happening is what the Anglo-Americans want.
You know the answer ;-)
No. They're made in Virginia and broadcast to proxies around the world.
Seriously, I'm constantly amazed by how oblivious some Americans are. You got it all backwards.
Israel is the tip of the USA spear. We've seen this already, this should come as no surprise.
What makes you think it suits Israel? There is only one person here it serves
careful, you might get flagged by the self appointed hackernews mods
Always have been.
Oh, it's not only Israel. It's also a powerful distraction from the Epstein files.
Wait, weren't the Epstein files a distraction from war operations?
I don't believe one is needed. USians seem ok with wars. The last one which caused problems also had a forced conscription.
its an Ouroboros of distractions.
Nope. In Jerusalem.
This doesn't even benefit Israel, it benefits a bunch of power-hungry sociopaths in Israel.
[dead]
They have chosen the weekend not to disturb the stock markets. They may pull that off when they get inside support as the corruption of the regime has made it unpopular with business class and the middle class. Trump may achieve another 'Venezuela' short war.
I'm very skeptical that external attacks bring about a resurgence of domestic Iranian protest resulting in a tidy regime change. I think the downward lurch of BTC tells you how it's going to go, because Trump's mouth is writing checks others are going to have to cash and there's a lot of contradictions involved.
How is he guaranteeing immunity to members of Iran's Revolutionary Guard if they do nothing? Likewise, if he's telling the general Iranian public to simultaneously rise up and stay home, how does he plan to manage the hoped-for happy ending? In the event they succeed and topple the regime, are they just going to let bygones be bygones with the suddenly displaced IRGC while also giving Trump the keys to their treasury?
This is why we can't have nice things.
My theory was they were waiting for the finale of Tehran on Apple TV
The whole Anthropic DoW tiff was related to this, and folks were downvoting me even minutes before the first strike for making the connection:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47189853#47191060
special operation
Rep Raskin said his search of the unredacted Epstein files found Trump listed more than one million times.[1]
And just days ago it was discovered that documents involving FBI investigations into allegations by one or more victims against Epstein and Trump were not released by the DOJ.[2]
I trust Trump still has time to testify to Congress about his connections to Epstein like others have been doing.
Meanwhile yesterday:
>>>the U.S. designated Iran as a “state sponsor of wrongful detention” and demanded that the country release any Americans in its detention.[3]
You just can't make this shit up.
1: https://www.axios.com/2026/02/10/trump-epstein-files-jamie-r...
2. https://www.npr.org/2026/02/24/nx-s1-5723968/epstein-files-t...
3. https://au.news.yahoo.com/us-designates-iran-state-sponsor-0...
> Iran, pledging to lay waste to the country’s military and obliterate its nuclear program.
Is that the same program that was totally obliterated in June 2025 according to Trump?
"Obliterated like nobody’s ever seen before"?
Why does HN continue to delete all comments against this?
Enable "show dead" in your profile to see things that get flagged to oblivion and that action is by the user-base not moderators.
Do you have any proof for this?
Not the first time Trump has wagged the dog.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wag_the_dog
Are there any accurate sources on how many Iranian citizens the Iran regime has killed in the past couple of months? (some sources suggest tens of thousands, but I wonder if it could be a 'WMDs' situation [lie to get support for a war]).
Trump said in the State of the Union [0]:
> in just over the past couple of months with the protests they've killed at least 32000 protestors
And just moments ago Trump says 'tens of thousands' [1]
Is this confirmed or conjecture?
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4l-iErpskb8&t=1h21m20s
[1] https://x.com/realDonaldTrump/status/2027651077865157033
I don't get that argument at all. Americans felt that they were missing out on all the fun, so they decided to kill even more Iranians? Does anyone really believe that bombing cities saves lives?
Whether it will in this case i don't know.
But yes, i do think sometimes war can be a net positive for civilians over the alternative in the long term. Not often, but sometimes.
> i do think sometimes war can be a net positive for civilians
Spoken from the comfort of your cozy apartment, with the AC on, light music in the background and a drink in your hand.
And how do you think i get to live a life like that? It didn't just happen but was paid for in blood by the previous generation.
Can't make me an omelette without breaking your eggs.
They’re not nuking Tehran, they’re dropping targeted bombs on government/military sites.
Get in touch with your local Iranian community. You’d be surprised how much they’re cheering the bombing on.
You might be surprised that people inside Tehran are shouting “get the mullahs out” and cheering us on.
This is exactly what was claimed in Iraq, and while I'm sure you can find some few idiots or optimists, it is completely false at the relevant level. There is no such thing, and has never been such a thing, as a country welcoming an invasion by another country, at least not in the last few hundred years since nation states developed, and since explosives became the major means of war.
This is especially false in Iran in relation to USA intervention, since both the democrats and the fundamentalists still remember how the USA & UK deposed their last democratic leaders and (re) installed the brutal dictatorship of the Shah, who both parts of Iranian society hate and remeber being oppressed by today.
The diaspora and the clans are cheering for sure, as well as a lot of people who lost their operations when the Taliban took Afghanistan back.
But the clans are way, way weaker than they were when they did their coup against Mosaddegh, so it will be extremely expensive for the US to keep control this time.
Us and Britain is largely the reason they're in power in the first place.
I think its incredibly difficult to get confirmed numbers in a situation like that.
I do think its on the higher end though as i dont think they would have bothered with a costly extended internet blackout if the number was small.
Why are we even talking about this? As if this is being done for the 'protestors'? Netanyahu didn't visit the White House 6 times in the last year to advocate for the welfare of the Iranian people. The "negotiations" over the last several weeks weren't over protestors - it was over the Nuclear program, ballistic program and proxy forces. It wasn't even about US interests. Iran offered mining, oil and other valuable rights. Trump wasn't buying. This is about Israel's national security interests and hegemonic ambitions. Protestors are just pawns in service of that.
If this turns into a full-scale war or a civil war breaks out, we are looking at 1 million Iranian deaths conservatively speaking. Just look at happened at every single foreign intervention in the region - Iraq, Syria, Libya, Sudan, Somalia. How does a million dead Iranians help them? How does it help the Americans, and the world if oil infrastructures or shipping lanes are targeted ? How does it help the region or Europe when millions of refugees flood out, and armouries are broken open and weapons and insurgents flood the region (like it did with Iraq and Libya)? It helps Israel greatly though, since they take out their arch nemesis, their conventional military and the nuclear program. And they think can shield themselves from the chaos they create around them.
> This is about Israel's national security interests and hegemonic ambitions.
This sums it all up succinctly. Emphasis on the “hegemonic ambitions” part.
Apparently you don't even have to give Americans the neocon foreign policy spin anymore, we generate it ourselves.
To wit, after Maduro was kidnapped and the exact same regime kept in place (minus selling oil to Cuba), and Trump openly said it was to control the oil, most of the reactions were pretending we live in a universe where the US does these things to spread democracy.
> Why are we even talking about this?
There were lots of reasons to do this. The massacre of 40k citizens opened the door.
Kinda like how Al Capone got busted on tax evasion? Capisci? Maybe no.
Why does it matter? Is it justification to attack them?
Its probably not the reason they are attacking (except in as much that it makes the iranian regime vulnerable). However i would say that yes, humanitarian intervention is one of the only non self-defense justifications for war that anyone has ever accepted in the post-ww2 era. (Edit: to clarify, im saying its the type of thing people build justifications for war around. Whether its a valid justification on this specific case is probably highly debatable. I think a reasonable argument could be made)
> However i would say that yes, humanitarian intervention is one of the only non self-defense justifications for war that anyone has ever accepted in the post-ww2 era
So when is the US intervening in Ukraine then? Russia is literally doing human safari with drones hunting down civilians in Kherson.
> So when is the US intervening in Ukraine then?
Did you miss the absolute massive amounts of aid US has given ukraine?
Regardless, there is a difference between how war is justified and why wars actually take place.
> Did you miss the absolute massive amounts of aid US has given ukraine?
I missed US bombing Moscow, like they are bombing Tehran at this moment.
Can the US or Israel morally claim “humanitarian” intervention given what’s happening in parallel in Gaza? If Iran bombed Tel Aviv would you call it a humanitarian intervention? Is this a creative use of the term? When you make a “humanitarian” intervention to save some humans, while decimating others it sounds like you think the “others” are not/sub-humans.
Tu quoque
But this will undoubtedly increase the general level of adversarial feelings and justifications of violence worldwide for many decades to come. The seeds of the next ISIS were planted today
So I suppose you'll be attacking Saudi Arabia after this if you're so worried about humanitarian conditions?
You have to pick your battles and be pragmatic. Changing the Iranian regime would have a much broader impact than changing the Saudi Arabian one.
Bombs for peace.
The 'tens of thousands' figure is one primary justification. Iran (eventually) getting a nuke is another.
I've long suspected DJT is on a rampage of radical, ragebait news worthy actions to take the news away from the Epstein files. I hate that it's working and many people have to suffer because of it.
I really do not even want to understand the mental gymnastics which one has to undertake to justify the actions of the US and Israel in recent years.
Nor do I even know how to begin to grasp the enablement displayed by Europe as a whole. People constantly cite China’s “human rights abuses” (which seem to pale in comparison to all this) and rightly so, but continue to enable this blood thirsty and power hungry tag team to indulge in flagrant abuses of international law and general morality.
This is a sad day for level headed and empathetic humans across the globe. At which point do we accept that WW3 began quite a while ago? Because it sure as shit did.
Edit: fully expect this to be downvoted to oblivion but it’s my truth.
To add to this: anyone who still does not see that Israel is by and far the most dangerous rogue state in the region is (at best) blinded by propaganda.
Iran has repeatedly demonstrated restraint and pragmatism throughout these aggressions on their sovereignty, starting with Israel’s strike on their consulate in Damascus.
There is a curious cognitive dissonance in which people think is somehow more morally correct to do human rights abuses abroad than at home. The US is doing both currently, though.
There is no need to gymnastics. Iran materially supports russian war against Ukraine.
Very level headed and empathetic to go and claim that 50 countries just lost their right to criticize China because US and Israel are fighting Iran. Trolls having their priorities straight!
Whenever certain countries start a war, China is used as a tool to divert attention. People don't discuss the right or wrong of the countries involved in the war, but they keep saying China, China...
He did not make that claim and even said criticism of China’s abuses is warranted. Zionist shill.
Apropos of nothing in particular, back in the previous millennium, UNIX (and Linux) had the `fortune` command. It would spew out a "cookie" - a pithy one-/two-liner, usually funny, often thought-provoking, and sometimes offensive (when invoked with `fortune -o`)
I had added it to my `motd`; it would give me a chuckle every time I logged in.
One of the cookies I recall:
A nuclear war can ruin your whole day. [1]
And that's what I think of when I see this absurd new war.
[1] http://fortunes.pbworks.com/w/page/14107138/politics
At this point, no country in the world will ever again 'make a deal' with the US, because while pretending to negotiate with you they try to ram a knife into your back.
You just need access to the videos then the pedo cabal does whatever you want
Canadian here...
The world already know this. Having an agreement with the USA is a lot like having an agreement with Darth Vader. The terms of the deal can be altered unexpectedly at any time.
That doesn't mean that such agreements are worthless. They can still be of value to the counties making them. It is just that those countries have to take into account the unreliability of the entity they are making the deal with. Deals with the USA involve a lot of forecasting.
I'm pretty sure US higher-ups have been publicly describing Iran regime change as a todo-list item for a while now...
It was pretty obvious that if the negotiations failed that the US would respond by attacking Iran. Iran didn't seem willing to give up their nuclear weapons program regardless of the quite predictable consequences.
I doubt the negotiations were in good faith, probably just a political 'see, we tried' gesture full of deal-breaker bad faith proposals. I think the plan all along has been to attack, probably for more than a year.
You don't go and rename a whole federal department to 'Department of War' when you don't intend to get into wars.
> I doubt the negotiations were in good faith, probably just a political 'see, we tried' gesture full of deal-breaker bad faith proposals.
Iranian officials made public statements refusing to give up their nuclear weapons program so they weren't negotiating in good faith either. Terrorists like the Iranian regime can never be allowed to have access to nuclear weapons for obvious reasons.
Iran has always said they don’t have a nuclear weapons program, so where are you getting this wild claim that suddenly they do a 180 on its existence, and at the same time announce refuse to give it up?
> Iran has always said they don’t have a nuclear weapons program, so where are you getting this wild claim that suddenly they do a 180 on its existence, and at the same time announce refuse to give it up?
You do not enrich uranium to 60% like Iran was doing unless you have a nuclear weapons program.
Did Israel bomb the Iranian negotiators again?
Israel just (quite proudly) said they had been planning the targets for months.
[dead]
> 1. The U.S. and Iran had already negotiated and signed a nuclear agreement between our countries but Trump reneged on the already-negotiated agreement.
Yeah, I agree that was probably a bad idea, doesn't make what I stated above any less true.
> 2. Trump claimed that his previous attacks on Iran within the last year “completely and totally obliterated” their nuclear program, “obliterated like nobody’s ever seen before” - both direct Trump quotes. Trump was quite clear that Iran’s nuclear program had already been destroyed like nothing had ever been destroyed before.
Yes...Trump lies all the time, that's nothing new.
> doesn't make what I stated above any less true.
Yes it does, it makes everything you said untrue. You stated Iran doesn't want to give up its nuclear programme, not true. Iran in fact already did agree to it, Trump then threw that in the trash.
Second, it shows the Nuclear threat wasn't the issue because he had a solution for it and threw it away. Then bombed Iran destroying it ostensibly, then continued bombing for regime change. So it's not obvious negotiations failed over nuclear which you stated, because it wasn't about nuclear.
Negotiations failed over dismantling Iranian power, mostly its ballistic weapons. i.e. give up weapons and make yourself defenseless to maintain peace. Like the Palestinians did with Israel, after which they're still being murdered daily, aid is still being blocked, and the west bank is increasingly being colonised. In other words an absurd ask from a sovereign country with multiple expansionist neighbours including one that bombed you and virtually all its neighbours last year.
> You stated Iran doesn't want to give up its nuclear programme, not true. Iran in fact already did agree to it
JCPOA didn't fully eliminate the nuclear program, it mostly just kept it from getting too far along.
> Second, it shows the Nuclear threat wasn't the issue because he had a solution for it and threw it away. Then bombed Iran destroying it ostensibly, then continued bombing for regime change. So it's not obvious negotiations failed over nuclear which you stated, because it wasn't about nuclear.
Nuclear isn't the only issue either, but Iranian officials made it clear they would not give up their nuclear program.
> Negotiations failed over dismantling Iranian power, mostly its ballistic weapons. i.e. give up weapons and make yourself defenseless to maintain peace.
Iran isn't interested in maintaining peace, they want to continue destabilizing the entire region.
> Like the Palestinians did with Israel, after which they're still being murdered daily, aid is still being blocked, and the west bank is increasingly being colonised.
Last I checked Hamas has refused to give up their weapons.
> In other words an absurd ask from a sovereign country with multiple expansionist neighbours including one that bombed you and virtually all its neighbours last year.
Iran has repeatedly threatened the destruction of Israel, it's not surprising that Israel and the US are taking those threats seriously.
Yes it did give up the nuclear program with respect to it being a weapon's program, this is what every expert agrees with. Also the reason every country signed this deal.
> Nuclear isn't the only issue either, but Iranian officials made it clear they would not give up their nuclear program.
False, they were very clear they would give it up. Are you at all aware of what Iran has been saying through its diplomatic channels? Listen to what the neutral parties are saying, it's clear on this.
> Iran isn't interested in maintaining peace, they want to continue destabilizing the entire region.
Alright time to stop talking to you. You've got a very black/white child like view on geopolitics.
> Last I checked Hamas has refused to give up their weapons.
Hamas had one lever to pull: hostages. Hamas gave the last tens of them up in return for a cease-fire to stop the killing of at the time exceeding 100 thousand civilians (admitted by Israel itself), but Israeli killing and expansion has only continued. Iran set-up the deal, US tore its own deal apart and bombed it. Do you think these are parties to make another deal with, to give up any leverage you still have in the hope they won't reneg later and leave you worse off? Don't be silly.
> Iran has repeatedly threatened the destruction of Israel, it's not surprising that Israel and the US are taking those threats seriously.
As have Israel and the US, does it warrant a strike on these countries? Don't be ridiculous, it's rhetoric to the base. What matters is policy. Israel has expanded its borders, Iran hasn't. Israel has bombed Iran and assasinated its leadership, the reverse isn't true. Israel and US reneged on their agreements that Iran upheld.
> Yes it did give up the nuclear program with respect to it being a weapon's program, this is what every expert agrees with.
Iran's nuclear program has essentially always been a weapons program, their public statements about their nuclear program being only for peaceful purposes have never been true.
> False, they were very clear they would give it up. Are you at all aware of what Iran has been saying through its diplomatic channels? Listen to what the neutral parties are saying, it's clear on this.
Just listen to the statements Iranian officials have made in regards to giving up enrichment[0], their position has been that they will never give it up.
> Hamas had one lever to pull: hostages.
Hamas holding hostages wasn't helping their position.
> stop the killing of at the time exceeding 100 thousand civilians (admitted by Israel itself)
When has Israel admitted this?
> Iran set-up the deal, US tore its own deal apart and bombed it. Do you think these are parties to make another deal with, to give up any leverage you still have in the hope they won't reneg later and leave you worse off? Don't be silly.
I think tearing up the deal was probably a bad idea, but Iran didn't stop building ballistic missiles or funding proxies either so it's not like the deal stopped their hostile actions entirely.
> As have Israel and the US, does it warrant a strike on these countries? Don't be ridiculous, it's rhetoric to the base. What matters is policy.
Israel and the US have never advocated for the destruction of Iran in the way Iran advocates for the destruction of Israel.
> Israel has expanded its borders, Iran hasn't.
Israel's border situation is a huge mess, but that's largely due to Palestinians refusing to in good faith negotiate a peace deal with Israel that would actually establish proper boarders. What does that have to do with Iran?
> Israel has bombed Iran and assasinated its leadership, the reverse isn't true.
Just because Iran doesn't have that capability doesn't mean they wouldn't if they did.
[0] https://english.alarabiya.net/News/middle-east/2026/02/08/ir...
The 'solution' explicitly allowed (by 2031) unlimited enrichment, burying centrifuges, and purchasing unlimited amounts of AD. Then no US admin could have possibly prevented an Iranian nuke. Once the faction who tried to make an ally of Iran got voted out, JCPOA was going to go. Negotiations then failed cuz Iran demanded 20% enrichment which was ridiculous. My favorite though is making the regime calling 'death to X' all the time appear as the one being defensive.
What are you talking about? Completely false and misleading.
> The 'solution' explicitly allowed (by 2031) unlimited enrichment, burying centrifuges, and purchasing unlimited amounts of AD. Then no US admin could have possibly prevented an Iranian nuke.
It was an agreement for 15 years. It doesn't at all 'explicitly allow unlimited enrichment' after the 15 year period. It just means that the JCPOA's limits would drop, and the regular NPT limits would still apply, including monitoring and inspections, which allows civilian but not military enrichment, and allows the US' military options with full transparency as opposed to Iran not letting in any inspections in the almost 8 years since Trump broke the deal.
Plus with this deal you'd have control for 15 years, and a 15 year window to negotiate additional safeguards as you see fit, or resort to military options as they do now. While negotiating this deal you'd have an assurance they aren't and can't build a bomb, and can ramp up pressure, and maintain sincerity to allow the other side of the table to agree to further demands.
Instead Trump threw this control away in 12 years ahead of schedule, removing ALL safeguards for the last 8 years and next 4 years, threw away ALL trust in the US's sincerity to make and keep deals making future deals less likely, and making a military intervention much more likely to be required. It's an absurd idea to have cancelled this deal with the view to control Iran's nuclear weapon ambitions, but it makes total sense for a president that wanted to attack Iran later down the line and needed arguments to do so, contrary entirely to what he campaigned on which is that Dems would get into a military conflict with Iran and he wouldn't.
> Once the faction who tried to make an ally of Iran got voted out, JCPOA was going to go.
Absolutely absurd to think Democrats tried to make Iran into an ally. Diplomatic engagement with Iran (which is done by all parties and their enemies, e.g. China, Soviets/Russians etc) is completely different from making a mortal enemy into an ally. Just absurd.
> JCPOA was going to go. Negotiations then failed cuz Iran demanded 20% enrichment which was ridiculous.
Firstly the 20% was prohibited in the JCPOA. I hope I need not spend any further words and the picture is obvious to you now? If it's true that as you claim that, if Iran had accepted 20%, that it would've led to a successful negotiated deal with Trump, how idiotic is Trump then to have thrown away a deal 8 years ago that already capped it at 3.5%?
So if true, your argument makes no sense. But it's not even true. The mediators between US/Iran in the diplomatic talks in the last weeks noted explicitly and clearly that Iran was willing to agree to zero stockpiling and zero accumulation, and converting existing stockpiles into irreversible fuel, and letting in inspectors in full. i.e. zero existential crisis for its neighbours. They weren't willing to give up their drone/missile program, i.e. become a defenseless country ready to be eaten up a few years later with no recourse, i.e. maintain fighting power without being an existential threat to anyone. That's an entirely natural for a sovereign state.
It's entirely reasonable to accept this deal if you want to operate in international law. If you want to rip up an existing deal to prevent a weapon, then refuse another deal to prevent such a weapon, then lie about an imminent threat of nuclear weapons which your own intelligence agencies refute, and then attack illegally under international law with no international support, then yes by all means go for it. But don't think it's not obvious that it's all a big and obvious lie, which you seem to parrot cluelessly.
First, JCPOA restrictions would have started to end this year, the 2031 situation was just extra bad.
Second, had NPT been enough, why was JCPOA necessary? Because NPT was not near enough to stop a determined state. NPT 'limits' do not limit enrichment. They just state enrichment must be done for civilian purposes and leave no enforcement mechanism. JCPOA also had no real enforcement mechanism starting in 2026. Iran could have simply taken all the money, buy weapons (legally), reach the legal max (which is basically infinity in 2031, a bit less earlier), and pressed forwards immediately. There was simply no way to enforce (some people think _this_ operation is too risky! Now lets give Iran over a trillion dollars and years to prepare).
Third, you're just wrong about current negotiations. Iran explicitly demanded 20%[0], beyond the JCPOA and with no civilian use.
Look, JCPOA debates always end in the same way. The advocates are asked how the original deal was enforceable in any way past 2031 (or even 2026) and they have to deploy word salad because the actual answer is 'Iran could have easily built a nuke, inspectors just allow us to see it but they would have been no way to do something about it'. It would be more honest if many of them just admitted they wanted to allow Iranian nukes.
[0] https://xcancel.com/laurnorman/status/2028050672583618946
They were literally in the middle of negotiations, but Trump started the war anyway...
"In the middle of negotiations" is arguably more and more used as a carte blanche to do whatever you want in the meantime. Prominent recent example being Putin pretending to be ready to negotiate for peace while bombing Ukraine.
The question is really whether negotiations were going on in good faith with the actual goal of realistic compromise.
None of us know that side, I would assume.
> They were literally in the middle of negotiations, but Trump started the war anyway...
It was pretty clear the negotiations had stalled based on statements put out by Iranian officials.
there is news iran accepted to zero nuclear enrichment so what are you saying?
there were not such news
https://www.moneycontrol.com/world/oman-says-iran-agrees-to-...
why are you lying
What's predictable is, if you don't have nuclear weapons, you get attacked. Ask Ukraine. If I were a small country (any country for that matter) the first order of business would be to build myself nuclear weapons now.
Ask Libya. They gave up their nuclear weapons program as a sign of good will.
The US then lied through their teeth to the security council about wanting to conduct a humanitarian operation and instead acted as the rebels' air force, helping them win and subsequently leaving the country in utter ruin.
You all just keep lying endlessly, I think most people get it at this point. Iran was prepared to go further than the JCPOA, it was never enough because it was never about nuclear weapons.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/2/28/peace-within-reach-...
I speak Persian (Farsi) and in state TV, every day, they said we won’t back down and won’t give up anything. Watch the supreme leader’s translated speech. Straight from the horse mouth! Who’s lying here?
Just to be clear I’m not pro war! I take Iranian regime as the first and foremost responsible party in this mess and then US! My people stuck in this disaster of a power struggle.
I can tell you that in Israel, the prime minister is daily on the news describing how much we are ready to give up and prepared to back down.
Obviously the leaders of both our countries want what’s best for all of us and always tell us the truth, right?
What do you even think the words diplomacy and negotiation even mean? Of course it included independent oversight to any extend the US wanted. There is nothing that Iran can do to satisfy the requirements for peace because the goal of the US is war, Iran has no interest in war that leads to their destruction. For fuck sake it didn't even include any sanction relief! Wake the fuck up!
The magnitude of human suffering this will bring, civil war, sectarian violence, it all leads to hundreds of millions of people dying, millions of people displaced. Nobody likes the Iranian regime, just like nobody liked Saddam, its not the point. These wars are barbaric, not in the interests of anybody but Israel and a select few American arms dealers and pedophiles that propagandize their way to barely conscious sheep in the west clapping along to the barbarism AGAIN.
> Wake the fuck up!
The obnoxious sanctimonious behavior of telling random Iranians to “wake the fuck up” as if we have a saying in what either Iranian government or the US side does. Go pound sand.
Evidently I care more about the hundreds of thousands of Iranian people that will die in this war than you. All you do is repeat the talking points of the Trump administration. I've seen this all before, the Iraq war broke peoples brains in exactly the same way, nobody learned anything at all.
Oh these poor Iranians need saviors, they don’t know what’s good for them. We know better. They don’t learn.
Don’t you see any similarity between what you say and any colonial. And my brain is broken?
Let me put it in a way that’s easy to comprehend for you. War is bad and Iranian government is as much responsible for this war as the US. I don’t understand how this is so triggering for some.
edit.
> Evidently I care more about the hundreds of thousands of Iranian people that will die in this war than you.
Did you care equally when thousands of Iranians were massacred in the streets by the government or the “care” activates only when convenient?
> Oh these poor Iranians need saviors, they don’t know what’s good for them. We know better. They don’t learn.
I'm anti-interventionism, you can't seriously reframe that into western chauvinism.
> War is bad and Iranian government is as much responsible for this war as the US. I don’t understand how this is so triggering for some.
Because its just not true, there would be no war without the US and Israel starting it, PERIOD. It's triggering because you could've said exactly the same thing about the Iraq war, its always the same disaster and people never listen or learn anything, that's why its frustrating.
> there would be no war without the US and Israel starting it, PERIOD.
“there would be no war without Hamas starting it, PERIOD.”
See how dishonest and ignorant that sounds?
For everyone else reading this thread as Iran being bombed: In 47 years of constant confrontation, islamic regime has not built one fucking bomb shelter for its people for these days. Let that sink in. Don’t believe these people who suddenly start to care about Iranian lives by taking the regime’s side and also don’t believe US officials when they say they do all these for our freedom.
anti-interventionism is immoral at some point
Do you think the Trump is doing this to help the Iranian people? Did Bush try to help the Iraqi people?
For a Persian you have very US republican boomer speaking patterns. And of course a very recent account.
> For a Persian you have very US republican boomer speaking patterns.
Most Persians I know will support just about anyone who will go against the regime, there were huge protests all over the world recently by the Iranian diaspora calling for the regime to be destroyed after tens of thousands of protesters were murdered by the regime all over Iran.
I presume its just an Iranian living in the west? Just look at the Miami Cubans cheering on the total energy blockade killing Cuba right now, its not entirely unusual for immigrants to sound like US republican boomers sadly.
The US demands were for Iran to give up all its offensive capabilities so that Israel and the US can bomb it with impunity every time they please.
It would be foolish for the Iranians to agree to that. But useful idiots will be useful idiots.
Iran’s FM’s statements on the negotiations contradict these claims. They said that they had productive talks and reasonable progress! Did they lie?
'productive talks and reasonable progress' is what diplomats almost always say in negotiations in order to maintain a reasonable atmosphere for possible further negotiations, this is not rocket science.
They also said the US demands are completely unreasonable, which you conveniently left out.
> They also said the US demands are completely unreasonable, which you conveniently left out.
Can you give me some official sources that explain what exactly was negotiated and demanded on both sides?
TL;DR Iran wants essentially symbolic enrichment so they could save face domestically, the US wants it to limit the range of its missiles so they could not reach Israel when Israel attacks.
I want to avoid linking particular sources because I know it's easy to call this or that biased etc. but it's easy to look up even in Israeli sources.
But that’s not what you said:
> The US demands were for Iran to give up all its offensive capabilities
Iran shortening the range of its missiles to the point where they can no longer reach Israel is what Iran giving up all its offensive capabilities means given that the missile threat is the only meaningful response Iran can have to a preemptive Israeli attack.
What's your point?
> it was never about nuclear weapons
The only reason to enrich uranium to 60% like Iran was doing is for nuclear weapons purposes.
That's not the point. The point is that the attacks on Iran are not about the nuclear weapons. Iran entered the JCPOA and complied with it, it had completely suspended any nuclear weapons program. But that didn't matter for Israel and their sycophants in US foreign policy, because for them the nuclear weapons program is at best only one part of the problem. Their real problem is that Iran is an independent state in the region that refuses to accept Israel's occupation of Gaza, the West Bank, and parts of Lebanon, and that refuses to comply with US policies more broadly.
Overall the goal is not to stop Iran's nuclear program, though that is part of it. The goal would be to install a government in Iran that is friendly to Israel and the USA, or, failing that, to completely destroy their economy and defense such that they effectively can't act outside their own borders.
> Israel's occupation of ... parts of Lebanon
Which parts of Lebanon does Israel occupy?
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/11/14/un-peacekeepers-sa...
> The wall extends across the so-called Blue Line and has made “more than 4,000 square metres [43,055sq feet] of Lebanese territory inaccessible to the Lebanese people”
So you're saying Israel's occupation of Lebanon amounts to 4,000 square metres? About the area of an athletics track, I guess? (Not counting the bit inside the athletics track.)
How much land area, exactly, is another nation allowed to seize by force before it becomes unacceptable to you? It obviously is not that much given the tone of your message.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli%E2%80%93Lebanese_confl...
That's not the question I'm interested in. The question I'm interested in is whether it's correct to claim that Israel occupies "parts of Lebanon", particularly in the context in which the claim was made, next to the claim that it occupies Gaza and the West Bank.
I could have sworn that I saw a goalpost here. Why is it over there now?
The goalpost is "Israel's occupation of ... parts of Lebanon". Do you agree with tsimionescu that Israel occupies parts of Lebanon? Can you back that up?
Yes I agree, and yes, I have backed it up already.
Do you mean with the link to Wikipedia? Could you clarify exactly what part of it backs up your claim?
Yes, if you are able and willing to follow those sources you can end up on for example this United Nations page https://peacekeeping.un.org/en/unifil-statement-14-november-...
> In October, UNIFIL peacekeepers conducted a geospatial survey of a concrete T-wall erected by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) southwest of Yaroun. The survey confirmed that the wall crossed the Blue Line, rendering more than 4,000 square metres of Lebanese territory inaccessible to the Lebanese people.
Right, OK, I guess if you're complaining about some land about the area of an athletics running track then you are technically correct. I'm not sure that's what people would have understood by tsimonescu's original claim that Israel is occupying parts of Lebanon.
And what exactly is Israel doing there, on that land the size of an athletics track? Something very nefarious?
How much land area, exactly, is another nation allowed to seize by force before it becomes unacceptable to you? It obviously is not that much given the tone of your message.
My answer to that question is context dependent. I don't have a strong objection to Israel occupying 4,000 square metres of Lebanon.
But I think we're established the answer to the question I originally asked. Thanks for participating.
The south. It's not a real occupation like the west bank, it's more of a 'raid and pillage' thing. No rape reported yet, so it isn't at all like the West Bank.
Israel only has outposts in Lebanese territory.
In Syria, Israel had a buffer zone since 1974. Last year they said the agreement had "collapsed" and went on to occupy even more territoru: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/2/26/israel-carries-out-...
Palestine is occupied.
This. Everything going on is one step closer to Israeli dominance of the region and “Greater Israel”.
No, the reason is to have a deterrence so that Iran could say, 'hey, if you attack us we'll develop nukes'.
By the way, I am a lot more worried about Israel and its actual nuclear stockpile that has zero oversight.
> By the way, I am a lot more worried about Israel and its actual nuclear stockpile that has zero oversight.
Iran regularly threatens to destroy Israel, the opposite is not the case.
[flagged]
there are many reasons to do nuclear research beyond medicine, for batteries like the ones powering the voyager space craft, nuclear reactors come in a wide variety of configurations, and many of them actualy produce more radioactive elements that then need to be managed. 60% is nothing,80% is nothing, it needs to be 93%++, and LOTS of it to build a bomb, and given the number of bombs already arrayed around Iran, they would need 100's and all the infrastructure to become a credible threat , for which they plainly dont have the money to afford. The wildly unpopular leaders going after Iran need a scapegoat, or rather a continious supply of scapegoats, but have failed to recognise that the world is moving past them.
60% is actually very close to 93%. To go from natural uranium (<1% U235) to 60% represents the vast majority of the effort. From 60% to 93% is actually quite quick; most of the material is already U235. And they already have enough to build maybe a dozen bombs.
They also have (had?) a very active ballistic missile program, and have conducted implosion experiments.
The constellation of evidence is quite clear: Iran is a threshold nuclear state with all the pieces necessary to credibly threaten the region (and soon the US homeland) with nuclear weapons.
Talking hypotheticals, while the actual threat to the region are the usa and israel
Nice segue.
We've gone from, "The amazing Islamic Republic of Iran isn't even capable of building deliverable nuclear weapons and they have lots of peaceful reasons to do enrichment to 60%!" to "Yeah OK, they are capable and they are indeed enriching Uranium for their weapons program--hey, look over here! USA and Israel!!!"
It's not a segue, USA and israel have been literally destabilizing the region for many decades now. They survive on chaos
And burying your facilities under a mountain is not suspect at all
Not especially. Their other facilities were being bombed routinely by Israel (along with infrastructure).
So they have medical grade uranium facility under a mountain? If that’s all they need, wouldn’t it be easier to just purchase it from a third party instead of investing billions of dollars hiding from Israel?
They have a military base under a mountain, not a uranium enrichment facility.
Building military defenses against crazed, genocidal, racial supremacists who routinely fire missiles at your country seems more like sensible forward planning to me rather than evidence of a guilty conscience.
True. Medical needs require only a lower percentage. I don't know if Iran was planning any fission reactors.
It was Trump who cancelled to JCPOA. Also, sending Witkoff and Kushner as negotiators is already an obvious sign the US is dishonest about preventing conflicts through diplomacy, otherwise they would send experienced diplomats. It is really the US Epstein Class Deep State government to blame here.
They could have named the DOD the "Department Of Peace", instead they called it the "Department Of War", showing their true face and trajectory.
At this point it is really the people of the US to rise up and implement a Regime Change from within to change things for the better.
You believe everything the US says? lol
> You believe everything the US says?
Iranian officials publicly refused to give up their nuclear program, no need to trust the US here.
My friend, that's been SOP from the beginning [1]. The question you have to ask is whether the US actually respects the other parties to the agreement.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_United_States_trea...
Somehow world will close eyes again ... Somehow we need to bring back moral standards that we all have deep in ourselves and screw this money world me all made together... I dont have answers or ideas how but this is just nonsense
US has been always playing god, cunning manipulations all over the world. Most of the Europe was silent until recently when Greenland under threat. US benefits from every war either oil, rare metals, trade, weapons, there is always an agenda even though they are not directly involved.
I hope you’re right but not too confident that will be the case. I wish EU leadership wouldn’t be as spineless as it is. I’m afraid they will accept any opportunity to make things feel as if they are back to the old normal if they are given the opportunity. And that would of course backfire, but long term thinking hasn’t been our strength over the past 3 decades or so…
[flagged]
Or you can blame Israel and Zionists lobbying the governments and media that radicals will crawl out under everyone's beds. (PS: it started before Libya)
You realise you are doing the “Thanks Obama” thing
Trump does something: "it's Obama/Biden's fault!"
Tiresome.
Nah, Trump is responsible for his own actions. But there's no way to justify Libya and not this, save for partisanship.
The US didn't start the Lybia thing, France (and particularly Sarkozy) did, and the US felt obligated to follow up. In Hillary leaked emails, you can read about it. The CIA basically saying 'the successor France want is X, let's try to put our choice as the leader of the next Lybia instead', and a week later, the french/DGSE candidate for Khadafi succession died.
Lybia was 100% a French war the US took over. Sarkozy's subordinates were extremely close to the Lybia regime that helped illegally finance his presidential election, at least according to French judges, so it was also also a very political war.
"This war like the next war, is the war to end all wars"
- David LLoyd George, c.1916
The first wars were fought between tribes and then later between kingddoms for power/minor differences and trying to increase influence and alliances. Religion and race and many other discriminating factors are used for both sides to get support of the people, the people who are actually gonna carry the rifle and risk their lives and lose it, this drives the next war to redeem the losses of the first one, to take revenge.
This then creates a community which dislikes the other community and now we are here.
We do not like to be robbed of an enemy; we want someone to have when we suffer. … If so-and-so’s wickedness is the sole cause of our misery, let us punish so-and-so and we shall be happy. The supreme example of this kind of political thought was the Treaty of Versailles. Yet most people are only seeking some new scapegoat to replace the Germans.
- Bertrand Russel in Skeptical Essays.
Humanity has had a history written with bloodshed but the problem right now seems to me that we don't know how to write future, we lack a vision for other prospects, it seems to me that we jump into the newest Hype on the block and its all so wishy-washy. Contrary to people saying its a western issue, I think its an whole world issue, its just that the west is particularly impacted by it.
Has there been a desensitization in things in recent years?
I know of atleast one leader (King Kaniska) who fought for land (Modern day Orrisa) and won and then saw the bloodshed and screams on the ground and decided to not repeat it and I think he spent later of his life trying to promote peace.
I am sure that there must be other leaders in the history of past as well but perhaps its the problem of history as well which can sometimes glorify wars.
I think the biggest problem right now is being noise. We have created machines so large that humans have lost dignity and are treated unfairly at scale in terms of Renting places at scale owned by shell companies who'd rather have it empty than give you affordable housing. Prices seem to be increasing and I don't think modern social media helps in giving people dignity quite the opposite at times and it's very likely someone is reading this who may have contributed to making the machine.
With this being a political thread, I see comments from both sides[0], I don't think I have too much to add politically to the discussion but perhaps I just wanted to treat out that its best we treat each other with dignity in this thread and in general because I do believe that's the only thing we can do which can bring change. It's gonna be extremely hard for people to treat others with dignity while taking sides which talk about wars killing people, but I don't know what else to say. Iranian censorship for its people but I am not sure if the current idea of America brings me thinking of liberation. One can wish for pure democracies in such regions but its gonna be extremely hard and even grass-roots movements of these can be shut down by intrusive forces whether foreign or govt itself and given that the region is extremely shaky relying on oil which can be extracted from ground leading to a less dependence on people themselves for Iranian govt.s being the reason why they can be so censoring. They have shown enough power to fight massive protests but as I said earlier, the current picture of America don't exactly give me the idea of bringing pure democracy in the region either.
My prayers to the Iranian people who are stuck between a rock and tough spot.
(there are no sides, its a circle, a circle of people who start wars and the people who fight wars)
Thankfully the stock market is closed
Speaking of markets... Polymarket was trading yes on this happening at quite interesting odds, "yes" was trading at around 30¢ or better over the next few days just a few hours ago...
I was quite surprised to see it that low... and also to find it is inaccessible for trading if a US national. Just looking at the platform it seems predominantly US driven so I gather many people are willfully attempting to breach the ToS (and probably lie to the IRS) when using it...
Nothing more important than dow 50,000
* "dollars"
That always happens before an expected event or attack on another country.
Casino.
At this moment, dont know what looks more terrifying. This war the US just got itself into, or the contents of the unreleased Epstein files...
They must be commensurate, because one is meant to drown out the other.
USA can't stop engaging in wars no? Now food prices are gonna go up because gas prices will go up. Or all prices will go up.
>USA can't stop engaging in wars no?
Eisenhower explained why in his farewell address.
I take this as a confirmation that more "nuclear material" i.e. unpublished Epstein files still exist.
There's at least 14TB of unpublished files left. A little under half of the 6 million documents.
And that's only the ones the FBI didn't "somehow" fail to collect.
There's at least 14TB of unpublished files left.
And that's only the ones the FBI didn't "somehow" fail to collect.
I can't help but think that all this shit is because Netanyahu really wants to put off more court hearings on his lame ass corruption charges. I really can't wait for him and his cronies (in Israel, and the West) to be brought to justice.
Without having to wait for the history books to do their thing.
His court appearance are continuing as scheduled, twice a week, for the last year. except for some specific incidents where he had to leave of cancel due to running a state.
No matter what you think, there is no way for him to avoid these hearings
Great, for those minor charges of accepting what, something like 150k Eur in gifts. As opposed to life in prison for genocide, which he clearly and absolutely deserves.
[flagged]
Go ahead, defend one of the most despicable humans alive this very day. I can't imagine what's going on in your mind. Maybe a combination of Attent and koolaid?
[flagged]
Dear commenter, I'm not the person with an international arrest warrant on my head. Netanyahu is.
https://www.icc-cpi.int/defendant/netanyahu
And may he face a fair trial and eventual justice.
OP: "Genocide should get you life in prison"
You: "That's just like, your opinion man".
... Are you okay?
OP: Bibi started a war to avoid his corruption case!
Me: that’s incorrect
OP: but genocide!!!!!
While Netanyahu definitely deserves that, don't expect anything to change for the better in Israeli foreign policy if he gets deposed and tried. Israeli politicians have become radicalized to a level that is hard to imagine from a European or US perspective.
Even the leader of the "left wing" opposition has recently explicitly stated that Israel was gifted the entire region from the Euphrates to the Nile by God, so they would have a right to own the entire region, but that this must be balanced by security concerns and tactical realities. This happened in response to the US ambassador's explicit public remarks in the Tucker Carlson interview that also asserted Israel's God-given right to the entire region. Note that this region, from the Euphrates to the Nile, includes about half of Irak, parts of Syria, most of Lebanon, parts of Saudi Arabia, and of Egypt.
Same, this is disgusting. Actions like these need oversight by the US people.
Peace and profit.
I hate that we apparently have to take sides when commenting ..
Comment freely. Ignore karma. Here are some uBlock rules that help:
You don’t have to take sides. I haven’t landed on a particular POV here. You’re free to take a breath and think about things.
https://x.com/realDonaldTrump/status/399731975432728576
let's try to keep to credible sources here eh
Joke? Or someone really dont know it's his account?
/i
All I can do is sit here and sigh.
The thing is, as sudden as this seems to the general public, this is something that takes months of planning. Having served in the Navy for eight years, I know that this kind of thing doesn't necessarily happen overnight. That doesn't mean it _couldn't_. The US military certainly does have the ability to plan a strike very quickly.
But, most likely, this was planned behind closed doors. Based on the reports, I bet this was probably planned shortly after Trump took office. It just so happens that it's a good distraction from the Epstein files.
I hate the direction this country's government is taking. It sucks. I just want to leave at some point. I don't want my family to grow up here anymore.
Of course there was a military plan for this since months, but that does not mean that plan was surely to be executed. (A likely option I assume)
What I find worrying is the standard tactic seems to be to do negotiations, let the other side assume there is hope for a other solution - and then attack hard all of a sudden. Already the second time. It might be effective short term, but it erodes what is left of trust negotiating with the US.
This one isn't all bad. From Trump's recent speech:
>Finally, to the great proud people of Iran, I say tonight that the hour of your freedom is at hand
It may not work but it's not a bad objective. My mum in the UK is a Bahai and a lot of those are refugees from Iran because they say be nice and tolerant and the Iranian government imprisons or kills them for so doing. Blasphemy etc. The are not a good lot.
Saving private Epstein has a nice ring to it
Why is no one calling it the Epstein War?
They’re calling it Operation Epstein Fury
So another war of aggression by Israel.
Trump launching bunker-busters on his midterm chances. Which depending on how bad it goes, potentially means impeachment and prison. Whatever it is the Israelis have on him, it must be good.
Works out great for Netanyahu though as is customary. He can be PM for a while longer and stave off his own impending trial and imprisonment. If this goes well for Israel, he might even get that pardon that Trump campaigned for tirelessly.
I don't see Trump in prison, that's just not in his DNA.
He'd definitely off himself in a bunker, in line with his great idol.
Not a chance. He hasn't even got the strength in his convictions to do that. Trump is just an opportunist, he'd go down like Jerry Lundegard at the end of Fargo.
I find the nuclear motivation an excuse. I mean, enrichment plants or not, if Iran wants a few nukes I am pretty sure that Russia would part with some enriched material and smuggle it pretty easily to Iran.
My theory is that Israel has dirt (Epstein files maybe) on Trump and holds him by the balls. The second idea is that this is an obfuscation campaign to have the public opinion forget about Epstein, the state of the real economy, the falling approval rates, or all of the above.
What makes you think Trump is not interested in this himself they just offered him hotels and land. Him getting blackmailed is I feel a lot of people that have voted for him are using as a coping mechanism. The attack on Iran proves the point just like Russia attacking Ukraine if you want to protect your territories you need nuclear weapons. Canada, Greenland and countries in South America should also look to acquire nuclear weapons as once they are done with Iran you will be the next.
What a gift to the deeply unpopular Iranian regime. Nothing galvanizes support for whatever-you-have more than an external threat.
Think about it. If someone actually bombed or invaded the continental US you'd have woke libs cheering for Donald Trump.
The Iranian regime may fall, but it'll be like Iraq. We'll get something like ISIS out of it, or worse, and the place will be a complete basketcase of civil war for 25+ years. Or we'll be there for 25 years in another "forever war." Bravo.
> Think about it. If someone actually bombed or invaded the continental US you'd have woke libs cheering for Donald Trump.
Huh? If anything, he'd try to put blame on "Antifa" and "the radical left."
>“Think about it. If someone actually bombed or invaded the continental US you'd have woke libs cheering for Donald Trump”
I think this is a scenario Steven miller fantasizes about while playing with action figures but that’s the closest it gets to being real.
Sure derogatory terms for liberals, as you term the left, would support the armed forces if China invaded hawaii but expecting them to also support Trump is fantasy. Like supporting America and supporting Donald Trump are entirely different matters and usually divergent.
> Think about it. If someone actually bombed or invaded the continental US you'd have woke libs cheering for Donald Trump.
Judging by how they responded to the assassination attempt(s) on Trump and the assassination of Charlie Kirk, I don't really believe that.
You're mistaking attention bait on social media for majority opinion. Almost nobody IRL sympathized with Kirk's shooter or wants to see people shot.
Social media is brain poison.
most liberals do not support the assassination of politicians. after the guy got killed, there was a massive search on social media where right wingers were looking for anyone who mocked him, and they got like a handful of people.
Do you have any better ideas or is it your position that evil dictators get to rule forever?
The Iranian people overthrow their government and establish what they want?
My point is that an outside force coming in will help the current regime and/or the ideas behind it. Even if the current regime falls, democratic or pro-Western ideas in Iran will be seen as aligned with the invading force and rejected by many people who might otherwise be open to them.
Is there anyone who likes being invaded by a foreign power, ever?
The British in 1688 (Glorious Revolution, when they were invaded by the Dutch).
Things were starting to come undone naturally then we decided to 3rd party the whole thing
Do you think the people fighting ICE in the streets of Minneapolis would welcome a joint Chinese+North Korean decapitation strike on Washington and cruise missiles flying over Portland?
Provide aid to the local population and provide support to grassroots resistance. Things do not need to be flashy to be effective
>Do you have any better ideas or is it your position that evil dictators get to rule forever?
If president Trump doesn't declare martial law, start a civil war, military coup or change the constitution of the USA, he will stop ruling in 3 years. We can wait that long.
how about a negotiating a peace deal between the Israel and Iran wherein they both agree to give up nuclear weapons and allow for IAEA inspections
One of the main reasons Iraq is like Iraq is the Iranian meddling and their proxy organizations which operate in Iraq with impunity. The Iraqi government is entirely subservient to the Iranians.
As the recent wave of protests in Iran came after the 12 days where Iranian regime was dealt a massive blow, I think your analysis is wrong. Iranians consider this an opportunity. Also, the scale of violence unleashed on the Iranian public by the regime is staggering; it’s not about the regime being simply “unpopular”.
US president can be democrat or republican, republicans can control the Senate or the House, or the democrats can control the Senate or the House - regardless of who is in power, Israel's interests by US are always met. US can wreck havoc on close relations and ties with Europe, Canada, etc. - but relation to Israel never changes. You can oblivious to all this, but the truth is: Israel de facto controls the US.
"Iran tried to interfere in 2020, 2024 elections to stop Trump, and now faces renewed war with United States"[0]
So we're going to war with Iran based on election fraud conspiracies from MAGA?
0: https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/1161475725227...
Not a single person who claim Trump is a peace president will admit they are wrong.
Trump is indeed a peace president. He is shutting down the middle east PVP server. Iran has been attacking everyone for 47 years. That era is coming to an end. It's time to make Iran great again.
Un-redact the Epstein files.
Classic playbook. This war will last the next three years. Trump admin will leak information and let Iranian cells in US cause terrorism, giving them the excuse to install domestic mass surveillance locally. They'll use that as a means to stay in power.
It kind of reveals Trump as a big liar. Not that this is a surprise, but even in his own self-image he can no longer try to shift the blame to others. Now he committed to war until regime change occurs.
What an utter betrayal of no war by DJT. This is the final straw. Era of Trump is dead, we are back to neoconservative era. I guess Adelsons are too hard to say no to.
Citizens United is an existential threat for USA. You cannot have Israeli-American dual citizens pouring $200 million dollars in elections. and that’s just her alone. This is simply not sustainable.
Or one South African-Canadian-American triple citizen pouring $300 million dollars in elections. I am shocked that campaign donations are legal.
I mean, some of the stuff actually wasn't legal. But accountability for wealthy elites is limited to a strongly worded letter
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c748l0zv4x8o
Just look at the fallout from the Epstein files where at best we can hope people will be embarrassed into resigning their current position.
Ideally we would completely restructure the government to have multimember districts and change the Senate.
Within the current structure, we need to implement ranked/scored voting to break the two party system and the implied complete control it has over our government. It's so much easier for big money to control the narrative, control the candidates, and play off extreme polar politics when the voting system makes people choose the "lesser of two evils".
Were I king for a day in the US, and could only do one thing to help America, changing our voting system to some kind of rank/scored system would be it. Ending gerrymandering and Citizens United are also important but honestly less so than this.
Can we not with the blatant antisemitic dogwhistles...?
Exactly what part of my statement was dog whistling? Can you stop throwing around this serious accusation of antisemitism without any attempt to substantiate your claim?
"Israeli-American dual citizens"
Making a big deal out of Israelis—especially wealthy ones—having dual citizenship is a classic antisemitic tactic, used to sow the idea that they aren't "real Americans" or their primary loyalty is to another country.
Also: yes, Citizens United is a big problem. But phrasing your comment as if the primary problem with it is "Israeli-American dual citizens" pouring millions of dollars into politics is perpetuating the antisemitic ideas that a) all or most Jews are wealthy, and b) Jews are controlling our country/the world.
Whether or not you meant it as antisemitic, it played directly and very clearly into multiple antisemitic tropes that are frequently used to try to smear and harm Jewish people.
I brought up Israeli-American donors because that’s what is relevant in the context of the story we’re discussing. We are talking about a war many right wing Israelis wanted for decades. If it were a general discussion about Citizens United and I focused on lobbying from only this group, perhaps your argument would have carried water.
Anyway, here’s Trump himself detailing the extraordinary access to White House this lobbying bought Adelsons:
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-salutes-mega-donor-mi...
[flagged]
Coming as a shock to only the most gullible people on Earth.
Fell For It Again one-hundred-time world champions.
It’s still pretty unclear how in the US is planning to go. For example, manifold still rates the chance that Iran’s regime falls this year at 46%, which should be a given if the US put boots on the ground. https://manifold.markets/SaviorofPlant/will-irans-regime-fal...
Theres no one more at war with the us people than billionaires
[dead]
what's going on in the epstein files that he's bombing iran
3 days ago this was in the news:
> "Epstein files: DOJ withheld documents about claim Trump sexually abused minor"
https://www.cnbc.com/2026/02/24/epstein-trump-doj-garcia.htm...
Will it even make a single newspaper or talk show this weekend?
Do you people seriously think that planning such a large scale operation can take 3 days?
What are the chances that HN is getting astroturfed these days? Are mods strict about it?
I lots of relatively new accounts coming with what seems to me extreme, but altogether pop-culture acceptable opinions
A large proportion of the software that runs HN exists to detect inorganic activity. It's quite obvious to us when significant numbers of comments are made in support of a particular agenda by new accounts or old accounts without regular, normal participation on HN.
Also, it's against the guidelines to allege or speculate about astroturfing (as is anything that is tangential to the primary topic), but we welcome emails (hn@ycombinator.com) from anyone who notices anything that seems suspect, and we're happy to investigate.
I used to report quite a number of political/ideological-only accounts to mods through email. They're explicitly against the single purpose account rule. They usually got banned or at least warned.
Over the past year or two I reported a number of accounts that are basically pro-Israel-only, they post a ton of comments to any Israel-related thread and either nothing else or very little of anything else. Mods refuse to ban or even warn them, apparently because emotions run high, there are too many of them and there's priority in punishing the most egregious content so relatively mild ones get a pass, and if mods are being accused of being-antisemitic and they ban a bunch of these they would reinforce the image, etc. These are from memory and not exact quotes.
I don't buy it, and I've stopped reporting things to mods. (To be abundantly clear, anti-Israel-only accounts should 100% be banned too, but at least I haven't noticed as many as them. Any other kind of politics-only account should be purged too if the rules are to be believed.)
So interesting I've mostly noticed the fishy seeming anti-Israel accounts, I think mostly because what they say gets up so upvoted
[flagged]
This is in breach of the HN guidelines.
Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, brigading, foreign agents, and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about abuse, email hn@ycombinator.com and we'll look at the data.
People on both sides of any topic are welcome to participate here and express their points of view, as long as they respect the guidelines. If you see users who "police it against honest reporting about their crimes", you should email us to point it out, as the guidelines ask.
Making sweeping claims like this without including any links so we can know what you're talking about serves only to poison HN.
> Unfortunately they visit this site regularly and police it against honest reporting about their crimes.
I think that's called "disagreeing".
That would suggest they respond to claims with counter arguments, as opposed to what they really do which is flag everything they don’t want people to see
Today we call that misinformation. Which of course should be totally illegal and in no way protected by free speech.
[flagged]
> You are fucking nuts.
WTF? You cannot comment like this on HN, no matter who you are replying to or what it's about.
HN is only a place where people want to participate because others make the effort to raise the standards rather than drag them down. Please show a sincere intent to treat this community and its guidelines with respect if you want to keep participating here.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
You are misreading him there. Read the thread again.
Do keep in mind that basically every single Israeli goes through military training, which includes training in psychological counter-warfare (hasbara). Even the 'cool' Israelis you know in real life are spies at the beckon-and-call of Israel 24/7.
What I'm trying to say is that this is an intentional part of their strategy. They know what they're doing.
They probably have a small detachment assigned to every popular-ish website. For the long tail, they have bot farms.
Luckily you don’t get to regulate who can participate in public discourse
What does Zionist actually mean when Israel as a Jewish State has existed for 77 years and seems likely to exist for at least as long. I'm genuinely asking here. People use the word all the time and I just don't understand what they are trying to say.
Zionist simply means that someone thinks Israel has a right to exist. I do not, so would be considered an anti-Zionist.
Hmmm. How many other countries do you feel don't have the right to exist?
What would you replace Israel with? What would happen to the current population?
[flagged]
If you live in the USA you are being incredibly hypocritical as the land was stolen from the Native Americans.
Approximately 900,000 Jews migrated, fled, or were expelled from Muslim-majority countries throughout Africa and Asia in the 20th century, primarily as a consequence of the establishment of the State of Israel. Most migrated to Israel. Do they go back to the Arab countries that kicked them out?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_exodus_from_the_Muslim_...
As a person indigenous to the Americas, I know very well that this land was stolen and I fully support the land back movement.
Israel replicated the very worst of the genocide of Indigenous Americans in the modern day and continues to do so. Zionism will fall and Israel will go the way of Nazi Germany.
Since Oct 7 2023 Israel has very effectively destroyed Hamas, Hezbollah, and now Iran. They have an incredibly effective military and are VERY strongly motivated because they know that losing means death. Israel is no more likely to fall than the US gives back all land to the Natives.
The entire world has become aware of the true nature of Zionism. Once the propagandized boomers are gone, so will be Israel. Also, considering that rockets are currently raining down on Israel, I don't know how you can claim that they have effectively beat Iran.
Can you explain to me exactly how you predict Israel will "be gone"? And where will all the current population move to? Why would these countries accept millions of people? I don't think you can actually answer these questions because this is a fantasy.
[flagged]
So I don’t have a dog in this fight but if someone came to my house and tried to kill and evict me and posted up in the living room and had to defend against my attacks to reclaim my living room, the logical solution is for them to leave my living room regardless of how long they’ve been squatting there. No need for anybody to die.
Where would the current population of Israel move to?
I'm in the US, and the this type of histrionic rhetoric no longer flies with us. It's fully up to the Palestinians on what they do with the Zionists, I support their sovereignty 100%.
"I would replace Israel with Palestine and I would have the current population return to their countries of origin." Is extremely "histrionic". You are actually advocating for a genocide against Israel.
You may want to reread what I said and what you have quoted. Zionists should leave Palestine (and pay reparations).
You mean millions of people born and raised in Israel should be forced to leave their homes and go where?
[flagged]
We need you to stop with this style of commenting, or we'll have to ban the account. HN is for curious conversation, not for this kind of ideological battle and inflammatory rhetoric. We want this to be a place where difficult topics can be discussed among people with different views. This kind of belligerence is not the way to discuss difficult topics. The overall effect of your style of commenting is to poison HN, and we have to ban accounts that do that.
Please read the guidelines and show a sincere intent to observe them if you want to participate here.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Even if Israeli Jews whose ancestors once lived in Poland were interested in immigrating to Poland, where 90% of Jews were murdered, Poland has not offered them citizenship. Would you like them to disappear?
Do you apply the same logic to all the immigrants from Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt, etc.? Do you categorically oppose all immigration, or only when it's Jewish families?
"back to their countries of origin"
You have absolutely no idea how anything works.
[flagged]
You can't characterize other HN users as "evil", no matter who it is or what they've written. Please consider stepping away from HN for a while, rather than continuing to post like this. We have to ban accounts that continue posting like this.
Edit: we've banned the account for outright calling that user "evil" in another comment. We can't let that go without consequence. If you want to keep using HN, you can email us and demonstrate a sincere intention to use HN as intended in future.
[flagged]
I've never once used tiktok.
[flagged]
Posted by a 48 day account that mostly talks about Israel.
This has felt like a super postmodern interaction
You also mostly talk about Israel (only from an Israeli perspective). I thought for sure that you were talking about Zionist brigading, since that's so obvious on this (and most) sites.
[dead]
[flagged]
They don’t treat Israeli* women like a second class citizen.
They’re totally fine treating gentile women, men and children as cattle. Slaughtered and imprisoned at will.
Not wanting to visit a country is not moral justification for killing its people (including women and even grade school girls).
feels like you're equating antisemitism with disliking israel's policies, friend.
Unless you live under a rock you know that they equate it too, when it serves the purpose of their needs
> There's no muslim country I ever want to visit.
Your loss.
[flagged]
With things like Openclaw it’s kind of trivial to game forums now. You just have to tell an agent to “post arguments for/against this perspective on this forum.” Give it a few talking points to include if you want to get specific and let it run. Specify the tone so it sounds realistic. It’s literally going to do everything else essentially forever or until you run out of tokens. Comments in a forum are dirt cheap so it’s also going to be very cheap.
Youd have to do a lot of work to make sure it's only a few short sentences, non-specific, and ultra-quippy though.
I mean I'm sure it can be done but if you ask an LLM to produce comment reply without more instruction it's going to write something a lot more thoughtful, respectful, and substantive than a forum user would.
It’s not that hard. You can literally say between 2-4 sentences.
100%. Especially on topics involving countries with vast online propaganda operations.
Not necessarily I see these green handles that just seem to pop up out of nowhere and they always have characteristically triggering/cynical tone to them, which usually triggers some type of reaction
Could be that these are being farmed but at a state level it might be easier to outright purchase aged accounts
HN doesnt have any defense against it, and the userbase is small enough that it would be highly effective.
What are the chances that HN is getting astroturfed these days?
Happens all day every day. There are many AI agents starting discussions and replying to comments. This is how The Crappening started on 4chan. Some of them are just future grifters. Some are training AI (I have replied to a few for fun). Some are propaganda bots. Those running the bots will reply with something equiv to Errrm Proof?? when called out. Without root I can not empirically prove it and the botters know that.
I predict about 2 years before the site will have more AI noise than real people. I have no idea what can be done about it aside from tracking the bots and reporting them via email to Daniel and I don't know what he could or would do. HN has always been very hands off which is mostly good but not for this scenario. If nothing is done it will just be bots grifting and AstroTurfing one another to the benefit of Google SEO and most of the humans would eventually go elsewhere with exception of some die-hards that refuse to recognize the situation.
Anonymous internet forums will very likely die out if inference gets another order of magnitude cheaper.
The only solutions are (1) private forums, (2) strict verification or maybe (3) some sort of "web of trust" thing, if someone manages to make it user friendly and not suck.
I agree and my bet is on private and semi-private (invite only) forums making a come back. It is so much easier nowadays with so many Ansible playbooks and Dockerfiles to automate things.
Maybe this comment is also AI.
Maybe this comment is also AI.
My nickname on here would at least suggest so. I think Grok is the closest option since they were working on making a snarky insulting version of their bot. Tame that down a bit and one could get the personality of Bender. [1]
[1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPNGFC7-t68 [video][16s]
we need to start a paywalled private HN forum
we need to start a paywalled private HN forum
In my opinion it would be mostly a ghost town if it requires money for something that was free. It would probably have to be more like a n invite-only semi-private forum. An example would be lobsters. [1] Not sayin' that's perfect, just an example. One can always try it and see what comes of it.
[1] - https://lobste.rs/
I've seen lots of suspiciously new accounts hoping into these conversations. Saying questionable things.
Your account, while 10 years old, only has comments from the past year. It is becoming very hard to tell what accounts are real and which are fake. Social proof of account activity pre-llm (usable) could be a very important thing in the future.
> Social proof of account activity pre-llm (usable) could be a very important thing in the future.
It's already common practice to buy aged accounts with good reputations, so even that doesn't mean much.
I think I have comments going back about 10 years no?
Which ones are the pop-culture acceptable opinions?
You should point out the exact posts.
language question: what does astroturfed mean here? (i know that astroturf is artificial grass.)
It's when people (or bots) acting in bad faith make a lot of noise to make it seem like there is a strong support for some (usually bad) position. It' a play on the term "grassroots". Fake grassroots=astroturfing
excellent explanation. thank you.
Take a look at the Iran subreddit.
I mean does it matter?
At this point, lines have been drawn. In conservative land, everything conservative is good, everything liberal is bad. So the only sane position to take is the complete opposite.
For example, if you see someone self proclaimed liberal being critical of liberals, that person is probably a conservative or its a conservative bot.
Seems like you’re describing political polarization. Just on one side though.. Why?
Im saying political polarization needs to happen on the liberal side because its about 8 years behind conservatives on that front. When Trump showed up, no matter how much other conservatives disagreed with him - everyone got behind in rank and file. Meanwhile, the left purity checks each other all the time.
So if you are a democrat, and you want to make change, you need to behave exactly like conservatives do. Elections are decided by vibes, he who can attract the biggest social following through whatever means, wins.
That's not totally true when it comes to Zionism though. Much of the left and the right are united against Zionism. It's the older center liberals and right that are united in being pro-Zionism.
I dunno if you are a bot, but in case you are not, I hope you realize that Palestine stuff is basically controlled opposition. All the extreme left wing people that happen to be so pro Palestine are basically all sponsored by right wing to peddle propaganda and normalize stuff like Oct 7 so that the right can point to them and be like "look the liberals are crazy".
Its a propaganda machine that works very well to target the very impressionable people out there. I mean, students are going to protests and destroying their futures by getting arrested to show support of Palestinians, who would absolutely stone them to death if they found out that any of them smoked weed, and even more so for the lbgtq students for simply being gay.
So really, Israel vs Palestine shouldn't be an issue at all if you believe in actual change.
I'm an anti-Zionist leftist who came to that conclusion through watching the words and actions of Zionists and reading about history. No one paid me.
Then you are just brainwashed controlled opposition.
Brainwashed? No I just don't want my government blackmailed by pedophilia so that my tax dollars are used to commit genocide all in the name of Jewish supremacy. It's incredible that Zionists think people can't see reality for themselves. I guess you guys got used to the boomers eating it hook, line and sinker. People who haven't been raised on mainstream media will never accept such blatant lies and gaslighting.
[flagged]
Nope, its correct. Your propaganda machines are very easy to spot.
Yes both the far left and far right believe that Jews aren’t allowed to live in their own homeland, because they are racist.
Please define "Zionism"
Not sure why this is getting downvoted, it's simply a factual statement. It's also backed up by polling that came out yesterday: https://apnews.com/article/poll-gallup-americans-israel-pale...
[flagged]
Did you mean to say Israeli? Cause that's what it seems like to me. The level of misinformation is staggering.
[flagged]
If you are sincere about contributing positively to the healthy functioning of this site, you will include evidence when you make a claim like this. If "Dan G has said" something like this, you will be able to share a link to a comment in which he said it. It's one of the most basic heuristics of moderating HN that when people make such claims without including a link, it is at best a highly exaggerated claim.
We turn off flags on politics-based articles when there is evidence of "significant new information". That's always been the case. The guidelines have never prohibited politics here; only the kind of repetitive day-to-day stories that make up most of the mainstream news.
If there seems like more politics on HN these days it is because politics and tech have become much more intertwined in the past 5-10 years. We don't like it, but we're no more able than King Canute to hold back the tides. HN is a part of the tech industry and a part of broader society, and it's neither viable nor moral to act as if major international stories about such grave topics as war are not happening.
why would he be doing that?
[flagged]
The headlines in Europe are that Israel is carrying out preventive strikes, the USA is helping.
And that's certainly the deathbed of any hopes to a mullah regime change. They will come out stronger than before.
[dead]
[dead]
[dead]
[dead]
[dead]
[dead]
[dead]
Paywall : https://archive.ph/M6Ywb
Latest update of the page archived here: https://archive.ph/VqSqj
[dead]
[dead]
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
hello IDF bot account!
What a weird comment. I’ve had my account for six years and live in the USA. You can go look at my activity if you want.
Can we please keep this childish discourse to sites like reddit.
[flagged]
[flagged]
I’m a Brit, married to an Iranian who still has a large family in Iran. I’ve got to witness first hand quite the opposite to what you describe, at least with the British mainstream media. With the exception of one religious aunt who is married to a military man, OP’s comment reflects the feeling of all the Iranian family and friends we know. And FWIW, I can point to Iran on a map, and I am not Mossad.
Nice to meet you! Funny enough, I am married in an Iranian woman, and that is how I learned about Iranian history and the beautiful people of Iran.
Hacker News is unfortunately very out of touch with actual Iranian people who are largely cheering this on.
How can this end with anything other than anarchy, civil war, or strengthening of power for the current regime?
I don't claim to have the answers, and don't necessarily disagree with you. But that's how the Iranians I know insider Iran feel. That there was pain ahead of them with or without intervention.
I'm afraid the IRCG won't be able to pay your next paycheck...
And Mossad yours.
Seems Khamenei is dead... So I was right you won't have your paycheck
Iran is on the other side of the Persian Gulf from Dubai, where Iranian tourists flock to buy Disney, Apple and other embargoed products without restrictions.
Next question.
[flagged]
Your account was created 32 days ago with no submissions or comments until today.
How's the weather in Tel Aviv?
Here people in Teheran cheering the F15 in the sky https://www.instagram.com/reel/DVS9D-ZjAHT/?igsh=NHNtNnAzM2t...
Stay blind to reality to maintain your privileged antiamerican antisemitic stand
more celebrations in Iran https://www.instagram.com/reel/DVTqbpOEaLs/?igsh=emxhMDRqdnB...
"Privileged"
Yes, ignorant would have been better
If you need me to be in Tel Aviv so that your worldview don’t get cracks, sure then I’m there
There is no sane person in the world will believe that Israel and USA will make Iran a better place, its just a hell going to be.
Is it helpful for a conversation if you call an entire people insane?
You dont speak for Iran.
Then who does? If it’s not the people? Who does?
Recently created accounts of dubious provenance on hacker news are not "its people". The views of its people can be determined through polling.
E.g. https://wanaen.com/nearly-70-of-iranians-believe-country-can...
"72% of Iranians oppose stopping the development of missile technology as a means of avoiding possible U.S. military action."
Or
https://www.cissm.umd.edu /research-impact/publications/iranian-public-opinion-soon-after-twelve-day-war
"This survey found notable signs of the "rally-round-the-flag effect" that many observers were commenting on at that time, including very positive appraisals of some aspects of their government’s and military’s performance during the war."
It’s quite convenient you didn’t answer my question.
The answer should be simple. Even if you don’t think I’m one of them.
[flagged]
Thanks Mohammed. How is the weather in Karachi?
Posted from Tel Aviv
If you need me to be in Tel Aviv, so that your view of the world holds then sure I’m there.
You're getting lots of downvotes etc. I find it weird that people find it too surprising that Iranians are fed up with the Mullah regime.
I have some (female) student friends from Iran, and they're all happy about this intervention. They want the Ayatollah to be gone.
All Iranian people I've met so far absolutely hate the regime. But then again, I'd probably not get into contact with islamists.
I’m astonished too. People don’t want it to be true because they can’t comprehend someone liking Israel.
Of course, it’s not a one-sided issue. I assume it’s 90% pro-Western and the rest pro-regime.
It's actually not all that surprising to see recently created accounts purporting to be Iranian and liking Israel.
Free to enjoy the puppet government we install
Nothing is worse than this. Come over and live here if you want
[flagged]
Oh bless, caring about civilians! How about the more than 16,000 children murdered and about 4000 child amputees. Yes, it's super reassuring that you care about civilians.
We are already seeing civilians killed: https://aje.news/p4rw7y?update=4345551 [Five killed in Israeli attack on elementary school in Iran]
It's the Iranian people who will be the final judge of how much civilian death is acceptable.
If so many Iranian civilians die that this new revolution fails, then not only will regular Iranians continue to suffer, but all the deaths in the protests and these bombings will have been completely pointless.
If few enough Iranians are affected that they persist, then it may well be worth it.
I honestly would prefer to live in a theocracy governed by the Westboro Baptist Church, as insane as it would be, than by the current Iranian regime.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_executions_in_Iran
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guidance_Patrol
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_state-sponsored_terro...
[flagged]
What an amazing false and lazy comment. Are you guys presently underfunded?
unlike you, guys, on islamic republic payroll
Go America, go Israel, fuck ayatollahs.
Iran FTW
Please, can the administration do something useful for America instead of… whatever this is?
Can we follow the age old adage WWJD?
What would (Xi) Jinping do?
> What would (Xi) Jinping do?
Make himself dictator for life and purge his party of dissenters?
But also expand through trade and renewables, rather than war and oil.
Much nuance, wow.
Luckily that can never happen in America.
Sure it can’t. History suggests democracy is fleeting and unusual.
Yes and then what? Bankrupt his empire by getting into global wars? Yeah sure.
Even HN is astroturfed to heck and filled with bots. The ratio of good faith informed dialog to Reddit like slop in these threads is wild. The old HN would never have such “obvious” black and white answers.
To hell with america!
This war shows Hamas was resistance group and Israel was actual oppressor and terrorist.
Israel attacked Iran
Israel attacked Lebanon
Israel oppressed and kidnapped Palestinians
World is getting destroyed by couple hundred Israeli and US maniacs, by the way, all of whom are connected via Epstein
This is war... huh... wow!
Love the Burzum reference, but it's low quality on a discussion forum. Downvoted.
What's there to discuss about this absolute shit show?
Can any Iran simps explain why the regime couldn't just agree to zero enrichment and cease its weekly ritual of organized mobs chanting:
> DEATH TO AMERICA
in the streets like blood-thirsty lunatics, something for which there was no equivalent in the US even after 9/11 (mobs chanting "Death to Muslims/Islam"), let alone doing so with governmental encouragement as happens in Iran?
Do they not realize how many Americans aren't pro-Israel and aren't invested enough in the Middle East and its politics, proxy wars, and human rights abuses to want the US to support Israel in military action against Iran, except for their nuclear ambitions, and regularly professed eternal hatred for our country?
We don't have many details regarding the negotiations, but early reports suggest that Iran agreed to the "no high-enrichment" line. It was the proxy support and MRBM standoff weaponry that caused the talks to collapse (allegedly).
https://www.thejournal.ie/iran-agrees-in-breakthrough-talks-...
No one dares to attack North Korea because they have nukes. Ayatollahs surely want the same but didn’t have enough time/resources.
Current stance on negotiations is a miscalculation IMHO, they likely wanted for negotiations to drag on for a long time.
Last I checked, no one dared to attack them before they had nukes because of China's promise (made good in 1950) to use their military to defend the regime in Pyongyang, and the massive array of conventional artillery pointing at Seoul just across the DMZ, where 25% of South Korea's population resides. Also: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47192139
I think iran wants nuclear weapons to ensure its survival against israel
So we're supposed to
>justtrustmebro
That they'll never, in some capacity, attempt use them against the country they weekly collectively chant death to?
EDIT: thanks, dang, for the
> posting too fast
cooldown, for all of my four posts.
> perhaps we could negotiate a peace deal in which israel and iran both agree to give up nuclear weapons and allow for IAEA inspections
I completely agree with you. Isreal has better relations with its neighbors than its ever had, has destroyed Iran's proxies, and given its obvious conventional military supremacy and lack of regional nuclear-armed foes and US-backing, its nuclear stockpile is just a destabilizing force in the region, and them voluntarily disbanding it would earn them a great deal of goodwill and a moral highground.
The iranians would say the same thing about the USA/israel. The israelis share that dogmatism with them.
perhaps we could negotiate a peace deal in which israel and iran both agree to give up nuclear weapons and allow for IAEA inspections
The current Iranian regime has destruction of Israel as one of their main goals. Not the other way around. I’m sure if Iran will have less threatening leadership Isreal will not bother them.
[flagged]
Regarding the protests in the preceding week, while the iranian people probably had valid problems with their government, its so pbvious the actual scenes we saw in the news were orchestrated to manufacture consent. Its barely hidden anymore.
If you see a sudden uptick in protests in a country the US/isreal see as an enemy, you can bet its probably just the step in the playbook preceding military action
Protests have been happening in Iran for years and their frequency and depth increasing. Last one was “Woman life freedom” movement because the government killed a girl for bad hijab.
It’s not new, you just started paying attention now.
I know its not new, the iranian governemnt has always been cruel to dissidents. I guess my point is a sudden uptic in participants and media coverage of them is the indicator of manufactured consent
Ok I get your point. You mean the uptick in US/Western media coverage? I do agree and don’t think whatever we’re witnessing right now is for the good of the people of Iran!
Also the scale in which people were killed in Iran in such a short time (even if you believe the Iranian state media) was unprecedented. So there’s that too.
The protests were there before. Maybe you didn't know about them, but many people have been protesting. These are 40 day protests - iran funerals are 40 days afer the death, and 40 days ago iran killed tens of thousands of protesters who now are having funerals. (Iran deach culture is more complex than that, but for discussion the above works)
Iran: We are going to get nukes at any cost and wipe Israel and the United States off the face of the earth. It is our destiny.
Israel and the US: You serious?
Iran: Yes.
...
Iran, after being bombed to a slightly earlier point of the Stone Age than they've spent the past ~50 years: We are working hard trying to find the guy responsible for this.
FAFO, as they say. Meanwhile, literally the entire Middle East and the rest of the world besides Russia will be happy to see these clowns gone. Bon voyage.
USA, bombing for peace since bombs were invented.
shameful for the west, and a tragedy. leave iran alone. defending the mullahs wasn't exactly on my bingo card, but here we are...
please, can somebody in the US or Israel have an "are we the baddies" epiphany?
https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2026/jan/27/i...
> defending the mullahs wasn't exactly on my bingo card, but here we are...
Propaganda is a hell of a drug.
And you think the US, now currently sliding into authoritarianism itself, will install an enlightened democracy upon the Iranians?
This is WW3 in slow motion. The goal is to takeover Eurasia and contain the Russian-Chinese alliance by eating away at the edges and removing all unaligned or hostile energy sources.
Remember how much toppling Sadam Hussein, killing a million Iraqis, rounding up and torturing thousands of random Iraqi civilians, destroying most of the country's vital infrastructure, and selling their oilfields to American companies at bargain prices helped Iraqis? It's going to be the same for Iran. There's going to be massive suffering.
But at the end of 1 milion deaths (est.) Iraqi oil was dollarized.
Saddam had been selling dollars for euros and talking about shifting his oil to other currencies for years. 2003 put an end to that - it was literally the first thing that was done by the provisional Govt. was to make sure all Iraqi oil was sold in dollars.
The Petrodollar was not in jeopardy anymore, and for the post-1971 system, that was essential. Same thing is now happening with Iran and Venezuela. The real goal is - China must not be allowed to have substantial sources of energy that are not priced in dollars.
Any kind of decent democracy would be better than the iranian regime.
So how do the recurring airstrikes help the protesters?
Get the guys who got them - they seem cheerful https://x.com/visegrad24/status/2027840034150178952
Easy: decapitate the leadership of the military, IRGC, Basij and let the revolution stand a chance.
Except not, the Iranian revolutionary system is very much designed around the desire to be able to rapidly replace people. The list of targets for a decapitation strike might just be way too long to be feasible.
Kill enough that the rest decides to flee for Moscow rather than risk getting lynched.
Much easier said than done. But hey, perhaps this will be the biggest and greatest air campaign ever.
It's the biggest military buildup since 2003. Kinda looks like they plan on overthrowing the regime. Which would be amazing for world peace considering Iran is building drones for Russia and supporting Hezbollah and Hamas. But we'll see...
> It's the biggest military buildup since 2003. Kinda looks like they plan on overthrowing the regime. Which would be amazing for world peace
Almost as amazing for world peace as when the US overthrew Saddam Hussein's regime and gave birth to the Islamic State.
> considering Iran is building drones for Russia
Not a meaningful supplier anymore, Russia just took the designs and onshored the manufacturing.
Russia is building Shahed derivatives themselves, Iran is not a significant supplier of anything besides the design.
Because historically, we have a fantastic record when it comes to regime change.
Japan and Germany turned out great.
Yeah -- it only took a world war, massive global alliances, and tens of millions of deaths. Also, I’m not sure how political and military competence from about a century ago has any relevance to today.
And a whole lot of fail ever since.
> 30,000 in 2 days - half the 2-year death toll of Gaza ; With no artillery , air-strikes or heavy weapons, without million-man armies facing off in pitched battles, without health system collapsing with 100s of thousands of injuries in 48 hours, photos or satellite imagery of mass graves and bodies littering the streets
Propaganda is a hell of a drug.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacres_of_Hutus_in_the_Firs...
Lots of genocides have been carried out with primitive weapons, even recently. Remember, the protesters in Iran were mostly unarmed...
A lot of them were armed as well based on the death toll for security forces. Again where is the evidence for all this. The Iranian government published the names and details for the 3000-odd death-toll they claimed. The 30,000 number is from diaspora, citing 'anonymous health and government officials' - Who all seem to be linked to Pahlavi, Israel and US-backed sources all trying to manufacture a case for the war they are now waging. If the real number is > 10x then giving names should be very easy for CIA and Mossad.
All this is just a excuse, when this whole war is about Israel's national security interest and hegemonic ambitions. The "negotiations" were entirely over the Nuclear program, ballistic program and proxy forces - The protestors, human rights, democracy none of it were even mentioned. Netanyahu didn't visit the White House 6 times over the last year to advocate for the protestors.
There's no way you can defend the Iranian leadership. Toppling them is not shameful, just like ousting Saddam Hussein was IMO reasonable. The problem is what happens afterwards.
[flagged]
Ask your colleague if his family is still there... May be not.
or ask another colleague whose family is still there. Would be different answer.
I can vouch for people still there. I’m a Brit who married an Iranian who still has a large family in Iran. With the exception of one religious aunt who is married to a military man, all the Iranian family and friends we know have been hoping for intervention. We've had emotional messages from my wife’s cousin (a new mum) describing looking out of her apartment every night for the past month praying for planes overhead. Take that anecdata for what it’s worth.
Thank you for chiming in with your almost-first-hand experience.
It’s crazy that some people nowadays vouch for dictatorships.
Venezuela first, Iran now… absolutely crazy.
Valid point but then again:
1. Not everybody lives in the direct nearing of the bombing/conflict hotspot
2. They weren’t doing that great before anyway (because, you know, the islamic totalitarian theocratic dictatorship)
3. They haven’t been doing great at all lately (because, you know, protests and turmoil and the violent repression from the aforementioned islamic totalitarian theocratic dictatorship)
Was this the answer from your other colleague?
Agreed. I had an Iranian colleague also reach out who was ecstatic about this news. The hacker in me is curious to see how it all unfolds, as well as to see all the curious discussion that arises on this forum.
[flagged]
Hacker News has only ever existed in a post-Shah world. The state of Iran today can be traced directly back to US intervention.
Killing people that blind women for refusing to wear headscarf is always a good deed.
It may be infeasible to do it, or bad idea because of geopolitical or similar reasons, but no - in Iran's regime case - we are not the baddies.
The headline says "US and Israel". Why are you all focusing on Israel?
Earlier headlines did just state Israel, US involvement became evident somewhat later.
I think everyone should stop being so nervous. How many times have the U.S. and Israel hit Iran over the past two years? And people still aren’t used to it? On Monday, the market might not even drop. In fact, a lot of people may want to buy the dip. Everyone hypes up the fear, the big players wait to scoop up bargains, and then what happens? Not only does it not fall, it rebounds instead. How many times have we seen this script already?
And Iran? Every single time it’s just performance art. I’m already sick of watching it.
Besides, Iran has been heavily sanctioned and blocked by the U.S. and Israel for so many years that its impact on the global economy is basically zero. So what the hell is there to dump over?
Oil prices? Venezuela’s situation has already been dealt with. The U.S. can produce its own oil, Canada still has plenty of oil, and Russia is still selling at bargain-bin prices. Iran and the surrounding major oil-producing countries are barely even moving in sync, and there’s basically no real incentive for anything major to happen to oil. So why the hell would the market drop?
As for all this fearmongering, I’d say go harder. Seriously, make it as apocalyptic as possible, so my gold can moon, I can pick up cheap Taiwan stocks, and short crypto, so I can completely clean out all the people panicking in fear.
Iran is the 5th biggest oil producer in the world. Not only that, it can cut-off the strait of Hormuz which 5 of the top 10 oil producers ship their oil through, including Saudi Arabia which is the nr 1 exporter.
In earlier strikes Iran signaled it did not want to escalate. It warned US bases prior to its attack, and sent small symbolic strikes to pacify their base, while trying to de-escalate through all diplomatic channels.
This time it looks different, Israel/US have targetted their president and political (religious) leader. There is hardly a more existential threat you can imagine for the current regime, so it will do everything in its power to strike back. If you put someone with his back on the wall and start a firing squad, don't expect a non-response.
Beyond that it's the middle east, last time US tried regime change we had two decades of violence with 1m Iraqi's dead and ISIS rampaging in the region. It's a human catastrophe that people are worried about, not just stock markets. To come here and talk about your stocks is insane.
Good. Let them have it!! Free Iran!
Most people's definition of freedom isn't being bombed by the US and Israel.
Does this contribute to global warming? Are the governments waging war paying their CO2 tax?
I'd think they emit slightly more than a cow's fart.
War is the ultimate distraction.
Clinton bombed Serbia for 1/100th the severity of the Epstein files.
Israel and the US told Iran "Don't try to develop nukes or else." Iran tried to develop nukes and got bombed. Then Iran tried to develop nukes again.
PotUS told Iran "Don't shoot the protestors or else." Iran shot the protestors.
Iran chose to FAFO; "Or else" has now arrived.
I don't like Trump and based on past bad experiences I'm not sure it's wise for the US to start a war in the Middle East.
I feel sorry for the civilians caught in the middle, e.g. the ~50 Iranian schoolkids that ate a wayward bomb. People can legitimately criticize the US and Israel for that mistake, but if they do they need to also criticize Iran ~200 times harder for killing tens of thousands of protestors on purpose.
I don't agree with people who think this war is illegitimate or Iran isn't the bad guy here.
Civilian applications require uranium at 3-20% enrichment.
Iran had 60% enriched uranium (hundreds of kilograms)
Weapons require 90%.
Not exactly there, but way past electricity generation.
> Then Iran tried to develop nukes again.
Do we know that for a fact? or is it a lie just like Saddam's WMD.
> PotUS told Iran "Don't shoot the protestors or else." Iran shot the protestors.
Do you think Trump genuinely care about the protestors in Iran?
> I don't agree with people who think this war is illegitimate or Iran isn't the bad guy here.
Things can be more nuanced than the "good" versus the "bad" guys and bombing countries isn't always the best solution.
I can't shake the thought that Claude is quite possibly helping to conduct these attacks.
Maybe it's a good thing that Anthropic will no longer be associated with the US government's attacks in another six months.
I still cannot understand what "Claud helping to conduct attacks" could possibly mean. Like, they asked an LLM to use tool calls to look up strategic info, maps, and military asset inventory and then write a plan for where to point the missiles? How is a text generator helpful here, whose job could it make meaningfully easier in the chain of command?
Target selection?
"Here is 10 petabytes of signals intelligences, you can run queries, give me the hierarchy of my enemy, the house address of anyone within 3 degrees of separation of their leadership or weapons industry, the next house address they're likely to be at if trying to flee my strikes, and the time they're all most likely to be there. Then schedule drone strikes on the houses."
I would not expect that prompt to work unless there's a fairly trivial query that can be crafted to give the right answer when run against the relevant datastore. If there is a query like that I would hope you have a guy on staff well-versed enough to know that and just run it himself.
Getting publicly kicked to the curb by the Trump admin mere hours before it starts another war is probably the best thing that could have happened to Anthropic. Not sure how well OpenAI's parachuting in is gonna look with hindsight. I have a feeling we won't have to wait that long to find out.
agreed. Although "starts another war" dismisses 50 years of history. Iran never stopped being at war with US and Israel and they clearly were never going to agree to a deal that left them without the nuclear capability to wipe both US and Israel off the map.
The JCPOA: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Comprehensive_Plan_of_Ac...
That's funny, I can't shake the thought that China's AI tech could be helping the ayatollahs' conduct their retaliation strikes.
I can't name a single thing this administration has done well, or competently and this is no exception. Unless, of course, you count killing innocent people between military action, aid cuts and ICE.
I am saddened by all of these comments.
Will not one of you try to steelman this decision? Or do you truly, fully believe the entire US government and intelligence complex, supported by roughly 50% of your compatriots, are warmongering baboons?
If assume the goal of the US administration is to really limit the weapons of mass destruction
then why the previous peacefull attempts were thrown out? I remember Iran agreed to limit the production or ivite the people to watch their actions, the US sanctions were even lifted in 2015. But then later reiplemented by the US for some reason.
unrelated to all of this, I don't understand what's the problem is with a country developing nuclear weapons. US can nuke Iran with ICBMs anyway if they try to use them?
Ok, fine.
Israël is threatened by Iran. Iran has been working on nukes. There have been negotiations but they haven't been definitive yet, and Iran has never been a trustworthy negotiating partner anyway. That is why this President ditched the last round of agreements.
That's the steelman. Reality is that half my compatriots are warmongering baboons.
Yes.
Greetings from the European Union.
I am saddened by your gullibility. Your first instinct is to trust this administration? Who has repeatedly showed utter contempt for the very idea of truth, the constitution, the rule of law, and science, merely because half of American voters are brainwashed?
This administration's arguments do not deserve to be steelmanned.
I think it's possible it's a good decision (As with most wars in the middle east, I think hubris is playing a heavy role and we're underestimating the risks involved) but I think I'm in the minority and this is _not_ supported by 50% of my compatriots.
I don't know if by 50% you're talking about left vs right, but I'm center left, and a decent number of center-left thought leaders support this action. I think the people who support this are a relatively narrow 25-30% of remaining neo(lib|con)s in the center, and the more left and the America First right crowd hate this. My guess would be loosely speaking Trump's base hates this more than the typical HN poster. Tucker Carlson for instance will be way more against this than anyone here.
Iran is a lesson to all: as soon as Israel or the US take a disliking to you you have to rush for nuclear weapons.
Iran has been the grown up in the room for well over a decade at this stage and it didn't matter one bit. You cannot appease Israel or the US because that don't want to be appeased, they want to bomb Iran into a lawless wasteland. They could have switched to a secular liberal democracy and it'd make no difference.
Don't know why you are being down voted. I mean Iran had a democracy that was toppled by the CIA when they tried to nationalise their resources in favour of a puppet dictator. If the US cared so much about human rights why not go invade Saudi Arabia.
[flagged]
My point is that any Americans claiming moral legitimacy for these actions due to human rights considerations should give us all a break.
And are you really claiming the CIA was not involved in instigating a coup to bring in the Shah?
I'm not sure what claims and what actions you are even talking about. Let's get on the same page..
Is the action taking out the Ayatollah and Ali Khamenei?
I know someone whose clan was involved (still were when I last talked to him, before the US left Afghanistan). Of course the CIA/MI6 used local support, but they did have an impact on when, who and how. And on the power structure from 53 onwards.
Iran makes the drones that russia uses to attack Ukraine every day. Iran makes the rockets Houthis use to attack ships. Iran provides rockets andgunding to Hezbollah and Hamas. Iran is a terrorist state.
I guess it depends from which angle you see this. Things are not black & white.
A big chunk of the world sees the US as the biggest terrorist state in the world, followed up by Israel...
Iran and russia are pretty black. Without any white
True. Your enemies are ontologically evil
Usa makes the bombs that israel uses to attack gaza every day.
As per usual, school age children are targeted first and foremost by satanic jewish state: https://x.com/s_m_marandi/status/2027882331969565114
I don't understand. I was under the impression that this a tech site. Why is there so much politics on here? What is all the rage bait. Are these bots or people who have inject politics and rage bait into every single place. Whatever you think of the Israel/Palestine conflict, maybe there can be places or website where some of us just want tech articles and interests.
Same. And I don’t understand why you are being down ranked. The HN guideline specifically stated that political news are not welcome, yet, this is the post with most comments in the front page. I didn’t come to HN for this
Seems that they are behaving intelligently - pummeling the IRGC. If the IRGC fails the public will probably have a bit of small talk with the regime officials and functionaries while the regular army and police will probably look vague amused from the sides.
>> Seems that they are behaving intelligently
You seem to have missed the little detail the US is now at war.
There was a deal with Iran, but Trump throw it away because was closed by Obama and Israel did not like it...
[flagged]