Yet another war, this time with Iran

[pood]

I mean, fuck Israel. I couldn't care less.

Why? They are an important ally,

Israel is not an important ally. They are a parasite. They have been oppressing Palestinians for decades on American dime.

and they face the same enemy we in the West do - Islamofascism.

Islamofascism is not our enemy. The vast majority of Muslims are peaceful. There is terror by some tiny sliver of Muslims, but the origin of it is much more complex than people like you are able to understand.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Well, first of all, what I consider a very important reason but nobody else does, Iran is not a threat to the USA.

Iran is a threat to the US and to the region.

No. Iran may be a threat to the region, but is not a threat to the US. Not even remotely.

It won't be like Iraq.

No, it won't. It would be very difficult to invade and occupy Iran - it's a far more populous country, with a much less accessible terrain. So any intervention would be limited to air strikes.
Iran also has a more unified identity, as opposed to Iraq which was stitched together haphazardly after WWI, consisting of Sunni Arabs, Shia Arabs and the Kurds.

It will be more like Afghanistan but more so. It will require a lot of manpower to do this particular attack.

It would, if ground invasion and occupation were the goal.

What is the goal then? Just to lob missiles at a country our war machine doesn't like?

Otherwise it will simply be the US lobbing missiles and accomplishing nothing. Perhaps Trump will try in Iran what he ordered in Venezuela.

Khamenei getting blindfolded and led to MDC Brooklyn would be quite a sight, but I do not think it's realistic.
I think air attacks against the regime targets - especially IRGC, would weaken the regime enough that it would collapse.

I've yet to see a victory from an air-strikes-only war.

Also the USA is broke. Very very broke.

Far less broke than Iran.

How the hell is the government going to afford this?

Seriously, a full-scale invasion would indeed be very expensive. But an air campaign, with maybe some special forces operating on the ground, would be far less so. And assets like aircraft careers are deployed anyway, so they do not add that much to the cost. Flyboys have to fly a certain number of hours, training flights or dropping a Hellfire on the ayatollah matters little; the only net cost is hazard pay and live vs. training ordinance.

You actually think just lobbing some missiles at Iran will have any positive result? If there's going to be any change at all it will necessarily involve ground forces.

I guess the dollar will be debased even more. Hooray for wartime inflation. We're still catching our breath from the last bout of inflation.

Just buy some Lockheed and Raytheon stock and you'll be able to afford eggs. /s
But seriously, I think it will be a much more limited thing than you imagine.

So bombing people for no results. Lots of civilian deaths while we're act it, but who cares about that they're not 'Mericans.

Now the Mullahs in Iran are already facing strong civil unrest that could actually unseat them.

The Mullahs brutally crushed that unrest, murdering tens of thousands. With some help from the US, including hitting IRGC assets, things might have turned differently.

Nothing unites a country like an external threat.

If the strikes are focused on regime assets, I do not know how much regular Iranians would perceive it as an external threat.

Bombs are falling from they sky, killing both government and civilians. Gee, why wouldn't they perceive that as an external threat.

 

[pood]

Not often I agree with Jason, but here we are.

And I wonder, where are those people who argued that voting for Trump would keep us out of wars? In the end Trump may or may not take us into an unconstitutional war with Iran, but the upshot is that Trump is an untrustworthy, filthy liar and anyone who believes what he says is an idiot.

 

[bilby]

Seriously, a full-scale invasion would indeed be very expensive. But an air campaign, with maybe some special forces operating on the ground, would be far less so.

Indeed. It wouldn't be effective in any way whatsoever, but it would be cheap.

Well, comparatively cheap, when you choose an absurdly expensive comparator.

Would you like to buy my new mousetrap? It's only $1,000. It doesn't catch mice, but at least you won't have bought a $10,000 mousetrap...

 

[ideologyhunter]

Not often I agree with Jason, but here we are.

And I wonder, where are those people who argued that voting for Trump would keep us out of wars? In the end Trump may or may not take us into an unconstitutional war with Iran, but the upshot is that Trump is an untrustworthy, filthy liar and anyone who believes what he says is an idiot.

Goddamn right. He was portrayed in the past as a realist, who told us that the Iraq War was a mess we shouldn't have gotten into (although he gave the invasion lukewarm support at the start -- of course he's since rewritten the history.) Now he looks increasingly like a rogue state satrap, surrounded by schemers, issuing very specific threats about who we intend to attack and what we intend "one way or another" to obtain. In the process, he has shed almost all our allies, caused the free world to lose all trust and faith in us, and he's done us in as "leader of the free world" for the foreseeable future, perhaps forever. The situation could be permanent, as, even if the Repubs are repudiated in '28, we will be seen for what we are, an unstable superpower that lurches back and forth between democratic and authoritarian impulses.

 

[steve_bank]

The USA toppled the Iran government and replaced with the dictator 'Shah'.

While the US (and UK) did help the overthrow of Mossadegh, this is quite a misleading formulation of it.
Mossadegh was quite controversial inside Iran and there was a lot of opposition to him. Yes, US and UK helped things along. But it's misleading to say that "USA toppled", as if it was a unilateral action. It is also misleading that Mossadegh was "replaced with the dictator 'Shah'".
Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was Shah from 1941 to 1979. Before that, his father Reza Shah reigned from 1925 to 1941. So no, Mosaddegh was not "replaced with the [...] Shah". He was replaced with another prime minister, Fazlollah Zahedi.

There were fears of oil being nationalized.

Not just nationalized, but also that foreign oil companies would not be compensated. Mossadegh was an ally of Moscow, btw.
He also did not govern democratically. He empowered himself to rule by decree, and in the 1952 elections he stopped the voting as soon as quorum was reached so opposition parties would not win seats.

An Iranian told me before that the people liked the USA.

I think a lot of Iranian people have liked the USA since 1953 too.

There was an American who died defending the Iranian democracy movent and was an Iranian hero.;

Who are you talking about?

Aft6er the revolution gaainst Shah the conservative clerics defeated the democracy supporters and seized control. The regime that exists today.

It shows just how dangerous it is to collaborate with the Islamists. Modern Western Left should be taking notes.

Our foreign policy paradigm was any dictator no mater how brutal and undemocratic who was anticommunist was our friend. Chang Kai-Shek in Taiwan after he fled Mao on the Chinese mainland.

Whether Chiang Kai-shek was a fascist is debated, with scholars describing his rule (1928–1975) more accurately as authoritarian, traditionalist, and nationalist rather than purely fascist. While he utilized fascist-style tactics, such as the "
Blue Shirts" secret police, and sought to modernize China through dictatorial control, his ideology relied heavily on Confucianism and militarism rather than European racial theories.

Our foreign policy has always been Real Politic.

I think the son of Pahlavi has always been lurking in the background waiting for an opportunity to return a monarchy to Iran. His name came up in the past in context of regime change.

Howard Baskerville (1885–1909) was an American teacher and missionary who died in Iran while fighting alongside Persian constitutionalists. Known as the "American Lafayette of Iran" he led a group of constitutionalist fighters in Tabriz in 1909 against royalist forces before being shot and killed.

 

[steve_bank]

That the dictator we supported in Iran led to a revolution and the regieme today is one thing.

From the start the Iran theocracy as a matter of policy wanted the destruction of Israel and replacing the Arab monarchies with the Iranian theocracy. Iran does not considerthem legitate Muslims.

L:ikewise in Saudi Arabia apostacy has carired the deth penalty.

IMO te region is a shit hole.

The Houthis, an Iran-backed militant group based in Yemen, have launched numerous attacks on international shipping in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden, utilizing missiles and drones supplied by Iran
. Since November 2023, these attacks have targeted commercial vessels and U.S. warships, severely disrupting global trade.

Lebanon is occupied by militias supported by Iran. Iran is obsessed with destroying Israel.

Haas has been te indent for eqace. Rtey will never gve up oical control in Gaza for decacy.

Hamas and Fatah fought a civil was having nothing to do with Israel.

It has gone on far too long. Iran has to drop Hamas ad others, and give up nuclear weapons. From what I have heard the Republican Guard may not be under complete control of the ayatollahs.

Too dangerous to have nukes.

 

[bilby]

Too dangerous to have nukes.

Which country isn't?

 

[Derec]

 

[bilby]

IDF are saying a four day air operation.

Seems like a very expensive way to make things worse to me. And if it only lasts four days I will be shocked (but not awed).

It has been known for a century that airstrikes alone can't achieve shit.

 

[TSwizzle]

Yup, it has kicked off in Iran.

 

[Patooka]

IDF are saying a four day air operation.

Sounds familiar for some reason...

 

[pood]

Yup, it has kicked off in Iran.

I’m sure that makes an armchair warrior like you very happy.

Hey, where are those people who claimed that electing Trump would keep us out of wars? There are at least a couple such people here.

How is it legally admissible for Trump to do this absent a congressional declaration of war?

*crickets* from the pro-Trump crowd.

 

[pood]

Look at Derec making light of violence and disaster, of human death. So wholly predictable.

 

[Patooka]

Trump has effectively now cemented theocratic rule in Iran for at least another decade because of this stupidity.

 

[pood]

IDF are saying a four day air operation.

Sounds familiar for some reason...

Oh, a four-day air operation! Yes, that should accomplish a lot.

Is like your four-day genocide in Gaza, Israel?

 

[ideologyhunter]

What a fucking mess. Do we have a Congress?

 

[TV and credit cards]

Saturday morning. Again. What, so it doesn’t affect the markets?

What a fucking mess. Do we have a Congress?

No.

 

[barbos]

Even GB does not approve this nonsense. I guess no oil for brits once Shah is back in Tehran.
I heard he is on the plane right now.

 

[TV and credit cards]

"When we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take. This will be probably your only chance for generations.”

"will create the conditions for the brave Iranian people to take their destiny into their own hands."

"The time has come for all sections of the people in Iran ... to remove the yoke of tyranny from (the regime) and bring a free and peace-loving Iran,"

I think the situation would have been better served for Netanyahu not to make any statement at all.
I know the Iranian government paints Israel and the US in the same light but it has been my assumption the Iranian people in general view Israel with a bit more disdain.