Merged Gaza just launched an unprovoked attack on Israel

[TomC]

Popping in for a few quick questions.

Looking back at the harrowing professional drone footage of totally demolished areas of Syria from a few years ago....

Is there similar comprehensive, survey-like drone video of the Gaza Strip from only a couple days ago? What about satellite images?

How much of Gaza infrastructure of buildings, roads, electrical substations, etc... have been destroyed in the past few weeks?

Have a substantial amount of houses and apartment buildings been bulldozed or wrecking-balled?

Here's another question.
Why did Syrians experience huge infrastructure damage? Why did Gaza experience huge infrastructure damage?

Maybe the similarities in those questions will give you some insight.
Tom

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Even if you could substantiate the claim that some Palestinians have been calling for ethnic cleansing (which I doubt since you rarely can substantiate anything you claim), you'd still be unable to show how they'd be able to carry out such a campaign.

Just look at the Hamas charter. Not your fantasy about how they believe, but what they actually say they want.

Please quote the part of Hamas's charter that calls for ethnic cleansing. Then we'll talk about whether Hamas has developed their own version of Plan Dalet, and whether they're capable of carrying it out. Also, please explain how Israel declaring its borders and treating Muslim, Christian, and Druze Palestinians as well as it treats Jews will make ethnic cleansing happen. That looks like a non sequitur to me.

Once again: https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/hamas-2017-document-full

Please explain for the audience what #27 means, considering the definition in #2.

Thank you for providing a link to the 2017 charter.

Section 27 describes a single sovereign state with Jerusalem as its capital. Section 2 described the geographic location of Palestine and says that "The expulsion and banishment of the Palestinian people from their land and the establishment of the Zionist entity therein do not annul the right of the Palestinian people to their entire land and do not entrench any rights therein for the usurping Zionist entity".

In other words, ethnic cleansing. The same thing you keep denying.

Where does it say that? Where does it allude to, suggest, or nudge-nudge-wink-wink that?

Be specific.

If they get their entire land that means the Jews are gone. They watered down the tone to fool useful idiots, but it's still about removing all the Jews.

And what is your interpretation of #6, #16, and #17?

#6--they don't consider the Jews to be Palestinian. What's the relevance?

#16-#17--basically calling for the expulsion of the Jews.

You've fallen for their deceptions hook, line and sinker. The "Occupied Territory" and the right of return aren't about the West Bank as they have deceived you into thinking, but about Israel itself.

As for evacuating the settlers by force if needed--they tried that in Gaza. It just made the situation worse.

You are dodging the question.

No, I'm addressing it. Right of return gives the Palestinians a majority. Israel is a democracy--next election the Palestinians will be in charge. Even if the government plays moderate it's not going to stop individual actions against Jews.

You said in an earlier post "If the people were mixed together how would the Jews avoid the genocide? Remember, they would outnumber the Jews." In the past you have equated Jews living among Palestinians with them being surrounded by hungry lions. If that is what you truly believe then why aren't you the most strident anti-settlement poster on this board?

I think the settlements shouldn't exist--but I don't believe removing them will help anything.

 

[Copernicus]

The real problem is that there are two different concepts of nationhood. The most popular one is that a nation should represent an ethnically homogeneous group--one language and culture predominates. You're in the club or you're out. The other concept is one that tolerates ethnic and cultural diversity where anyone willing to play by the rules is allowed into the club as an equal. Israel was conceived as an ethnically homogeneous club, and most Israelis don't want that to change. The two-state solution maintains the ethnically pure concept, even though Israelis are still basically of the same culture as Palestinian Muslims. The one-state solution follows the concept of tolerance for diversity, but the Jewish population would lose its dominance and control.

 

[Arctish]

Once again: https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/hamas-2017-document-full

Please explain for the audience what #27 means, considering the definition in #2.

Thank you for providing a link to the 2017 charter.

Section 27 describes a single sovereign state with Jerusalem as its capital. Section 2 described the geographic location of Palestine and says that "The expulsion and banishment of the Palestinian people from their land and the establishment of the Zionist entity therein do not annul the right of the Palestinian people to their entire land and do not entrench any rights therein for the usurping Zionist entity".

In other words, ethnic cleansing. The same thing you keep denying.

Where does it say that? Where does it allude to, suggest, or nudge-nudge-wink-wink that?

Be specific.

If they get their entire land that means the Jews are gone. They watered down the tone to fool useful idiots, but it's still about removing all the Jews.

And what is your interpretation of #6, #16, and #17?

#6--they don't consider the Jews to be Palestinian. What's the relevance?

The Charter says:

6. The Palestinian people are one people, inside and outside of Palestine, irrespective of their religion, culture or political affiliation

^That^ includes Palestinian Jews.

#16-#17--basically calling for the expulsion of the Jews.

Totally false.

The Charter says:

16. Hamas confirms that its conflict is with the Zionist project not with the Jews because of their religion. Hamas does not wage a struggle against the Jews because they are Jewish but against the Zionists who occupy Palestine. Yet is is the Zionists who constantly identify Judaism and the Jews with their own colonial project and illegal entry.

The Charter makes a clear distinction between Zionism and Judaism, and between Zionists and Jews. It clearly states that Hamas opposes Zionism but does not wage a struggle against Jews.

It also points out that Zionists frequently conflate Zionism and Judaism but there is a difference and Hamas recognizes it.

The Charter says:

17. Hamas rejects the persecution of any human being or the undermining of his or her rights on nationalist, religious or sectarian grounds. Hamas is of the view that the Jewish problem, anti-Semitism and the persecution of the Jews are phenomena fundamentally linked to European history and not to the history of the Arabs and the Muslims or to their heritage. The Zionist movement, which was able with the help of Western powers to occupy Palestine, is the most dangerous form of settlement occupation which has already disappeared from much of the world and must disappear from Palestine.

^This^ is a rejection of ethnic cleansing,

It also echoes something David Ben-Gurion said about the Palestinian people having had nothing to do with the persecution that fueled the Zionist movement among the European Jews who illegally immigrated to Palestine in order to take the region for themselves.

You can't use the Hamas charter to support your claims. It doesn't say what you want it to say,

You've fallen for their deceptions hook, line and sinker. The "Occupied Territory" and the right of return aren't about the West Bank as they have deceived you into thinking, but about Israel itself.

As for evacuating the settlers by force if needed--they tried that in Gaza. It just made the situation worse.

You are dodging the question.

No, I'm addressing it. Right of return gives the Palestinians a majority. Israel is a democracy--next election the Palestinians will be in charge. Even if the government plays moderate it's not going to stop individual actions against Jews.

You are dodging the question. Why aren't you the most strident opponent of the building of settlements in the West Bank? Why don't you care that Jews are moving into situations you liken to being surrounded by hungry lions? I think it's because your argument is bullshit.

Here you are, making that same extremist all-or-nothing, dead-or-fled excluded middle fallacy whenever the Right of Return for Palestinians is mentioned, while at the same time you don't think it is a problem for non-Jews to outnumber Jews by a 4-1 margin in the West Bank.

Your argument for why the results of ethnic cleansing should be made permanent is just fear mongering meant to appeal to bigotry and racism rather than reason.

You said in an earlier post "If the people were mixed together how would the Jews avoid the genocide? Remember, they would outnumber the Jews." In the past you have equated Jews living among Palestinians with them being surrounded by hungry lions. If that is what you truly believe then why aren't you the most strident anti-settlement poster on this board?

I think the settlements shouldn't exist--but I don't believe removing them will help anything.

So it's okay for Jews to live where they're vastly outnumbered by mostly Muslims.

That's what I thought.

 

[Derec]

Have a substantial amount of houses and apartment buildings been bulldozed or wrecking-balled?

Who let Mylie Cyrus into Gaza?

 

[Derec]

The one-state solution follows the concept of tolerance for diversity, but the Jewish population would lose its dominance and control.

I think it is very naïve to think that the "one state" dominated by Muslim Palestinians would be at all tolerant towards Jews.

 

[Derec]

A pretty good capture of an Israeli strike on a tunnel used for explosives storage. Note the secondary explosions.

I really hope there were a bunch of Hamas terrorists down there.

 

[Derec]

Please quote the part of Hamas's charter that calls for ethnic cleansing.

Why does it have to be part of their charter? Are statements by Hamas leaders like Fathi Hamad or their actions of murdering Israeli civilians for decades not enough?

You are basically an apologist for Hamas terrorists and for worldwide Islamism in general.
A poster boy for the concept of Islamoleftism.

 

[Derec]

The author of the article agrees with Loren, as do I. If the current government doesn't protect the people, the people will replace it with something else. Given the circumstances in Gaza, the replacement for Hamas is likely to be even more extreme.

Terrorist attacks against their neighbor do not make Gaza safer. Quite the contrary. Thousands of Gazans have been killed, and over a million moved to the south of the Strip because Hamas attacked Israel on 10/7 and massacred ~1200 people.
If the replacement for Hamas is even more extreme, and the people of Gaza support them like they are supporting Hamas, then they do not have anybody else to blame but themselves. Gazans are currently in the "find out" phase after fucking around on 10/7.
In 2005, when Israel withdrew, Gaza could have chosen peace and coexistence. Instead they chose to keep attacking Israel, and Israel has a right to respond in self-defense.

And the replacement for Abbas as the leader of Fatah is very likely to be less devoted to peace through diplomacy. It's likely the PA will soon be led by a person who wouldn't step away if there's another violent Intifada, and might even happily lead it.

In which case US and EU must defund the PA. Abbas is bad enough, maintaining the "pay for slay" program, naming streets and facilities after terrorists, and now this:
Netanyahu: Holocaust denier Abbas now trafficking in 'proposterous' October 7 denialism

So what do you think about that?

I think the only way is to fight against terrorism, be it Hamas, Islamic Jihad, PFLP or Fatah groups like Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades.
US also needs to be more forceful against Iran, because they are the major backers of Palestinian terrorism.

Do you agree with the author and Loren and me, or do you think the governments in Israel, Gaza, and the PA will remain unchanged even if they continue to fail to protect their citizenry? If you think they might change, in what way do you suppose that will be?

I think Netanyahu will lose his prime ministership after the war, as 10/7 was a major fuckup on his watch.
And Hamas must be destroyed. Those who support it must either realize that decades of terrorism is not a solution and accept Israel as a neighbor, or else they must be fought as well. There is no other alternative.
Even if you think Hamas are the good guys or that Islamism is not that bad to live under.

 

[laughing dog]

Please quote the part of Hamas's charter that calls for ethnic cleansing.

Why does it have to be part of their charter? Are statements by Hamas leaders like Fathi Hamad or their actions of murdering Israeli civilians for decades not enough?

Are the statements from Netanhyu of Israel’s killing multitudes of Palestisn civilians not enough ?

You are basically an apologist for Hamas terrorists and for worldwide Islamism in general.
A poster boy for the concept of Islamoleftism.

Pretty ironic coming from a cheerleader for killing lots of Palestinian civilians .

 

[Arctish]

Please quote the part of Hamas's charter that calls for ethnic cleansing.

Why does it have to be part of their charter? Are statements by Hamas leaders like Fathi Hamad or their actions of murdering Israeli civilians for decades not enough?

Loren cited the Charter when I asked him to support his claims. So that's why we're discussing the Charter.

After he supports his claims we're going to discuss whether the ethnic cleansing of millions of heavily armed Jews with IDF training and experience from within Israel's internationally recognized borders is a plausible scenario.

You are basically an apologist for Hamas terrorists and for worldwide Islamism in general.
A poster boy for the concept of Islamoleftism.

You are employing an Ad Hominem fallacy to prop up Loren's bullshitting.

Let Loren support his claims. We all might learn something if he can actually link to a source.

Meanwhile, you can support yours. I have consistently called for an end to the racism and religious bigotry that you fear would cause Jews to be forcibly removed from Israel. And I have repeatedly said I believe Hamas must be defeated on the ground and at the ballot box. IMO there are too many terrorists in the organization for it to live up to the ideals of supporting human rights expressed in parts of its Charter.

If you could only get over your own bigotry against Christian and Muslim Palestinians and embrace human rights regardless of race, religion, ethnicity, etc. we'd be a helluva team in these discussions. You have sources of information I haven't seen, and vice versa.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The real problem is that there are two different concepts of nationhood. The most popular one is that a nation should represent an ethnically homogeneous group--one language and culture predominates. You're in the club or you're out. The other concept is one that tolerates ethnic and cultural diversity where anyone willing to play by the rules is allowed into the club as an equal. Israel was conceived as an ethnically homogeneous club, and most Israelis don't want that to change. The two-state solution maintains the ethnically pure concept, even though Israelis are still basically of the same culture as Palestinian Muslims. The one-state solution follows the concept of tolerance for diversity, but the Jewish population would lose its dominance and control.

Except tolerance for diversity only works if the people tolerate diversity. A one-state solution produces a diverse society in which most people will not tolerate the diversity.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Once again: https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/hamas-2017-document-full

Please explain for the audience what #27 means, considering the definition in #2.

Thank you for providing a link to the 2017 charter.

Section 27 describes a single sovereign state with Jerusalem as its capital. Section 2 described the geographic location of Palestine and says that "The expulsion and banishment of the Palestinian people from their land and the establishment of the Zionist entity therein do not annul the right of the Palestinian people to their entire land and do not entrench any rights therein for the usurping Zionist entity".

In other words, ethnic cleansing. The same thing you keep denying.

Where does it say that? Where does it allude to, suggest, or nudge-nudge-wink-wink that?

Be specific.

If they get their entire land that means the Jews are gone. They watered down the tone to fool useful idiots, but it's still about removing all the Jews.

And what is your interpretation of #6, #16, and #17?

#6--they don't consider the Jews to be Palestinian. What's the relevance?

The Charter says:

6. The Palestinian people are one people, inside and outside of Palestine, irrespective of their religion, culture or political affiliation

^That^ includes Palestinian Jews.

What Palestinian Jews? Few people from before 1948 are left on either side.

#16-#17--basically calling for the expulsion of the Jews.

Totally false.

The Charter says:

16. Hamas confirms that its conflict is with the Zionist project not with the Jews because of their religion. Hamas does not wage a struggle against the Jews because they are Jewish but against the Zionists who occupy Palestine. Yet is is the Zionists who constantly identify Judaism and the Jews with their own colonial project and illegal entry.

The Charter makes a clear distinction between Zionism and Judaism, and between Zionists and Jews. It clearly states that Hamas opposes Zionism but does not wage a struggle against Jews.

But by being in Israel they are Zionists. #16 is saying they aren't going after Jews elsewhere.

It also points out that Zionists frequently conflate Zionism and Judaism but there is a difference and Hamas recognizes it.

The Charter says:

17. Hamas rejects the persecution of any human being or the undermining of his or her rights on nationalist, religious or sectarian grounds. Hamas is of the view that the Jewish problem, anti-Semitism and the persecution of the Jews are phenomena fundamentally linked to European history and not to the history of the Arabs and the Muslims or to their heritage. The Zionist movement, which was able with the help of Western powers to occupy Palestine, is the most dangerous form of settlement occupation which has already disappeared from much of the world and must disappear from Palestine.

^This^ is a rejection of ethnic cleansing,

Settlement occupation--in other words, throw out anyone who moved to Israel.

It also echoes something David Ben-Gurion said about the Palestinian people having had nothing to do with the persecution that fueled the Zionist movement among the European Jews who illegally immigrated to Palestine in order to take the region for themselves.

You can't use the Hamas charter to support your claims. It doesn't say what you want it to say,

The problem is you are interpreting the words in a very favorable light--they are intended to look ok in a favorable light.

You've fallen for their deceptions hook, line and sinker. The "Occupied Territory" and the right of return aren't about the West Bank as they have deceived you into thinking, but about Israel itself.

As for evacuating the settlers by force if needed--they tried that in Gaza. It just made the situation worse.

You are dodging the question.

No, I'm addressing it. Right of return gives the Palestinians a majority. Israel is a democracy--next election the Palestinians will be in charge. Even if the government plays moderate it's not going to stop individual actions against Jews.

You are dodging the question. Why aren't you the most strident opponent of the building of settlements in the West Bank? Why don't you care that Jews are moving into situations you liken to being surrounded by hungry lions? I think it's because your argument is bullshit.

I consider the settlements a minor issue because I realize they are a red herring. Yes, they should not exist but the problem predates the existence of the settlements so unless there's a time machine involved they aren't the cause.

Here you are, making that same extremist all-or-nothing, dead-or-fled excluded middle fallacy whenever the Right of Return for Palestinians is mentioned, while at the same time you don't think it is a problem for non-Jews to outnumber Jews by a 4-1 margin in the West Bank.

It's not extremist--both sides recognize that's what would happen.

And the West Bank does cause a problem that I have mentioned multiple times--a Jew who gets lost and enters a Palestinian area very well might be murdered. It doesn't cause an overall problem because the Palestinians are Jordanian, not Israeli, and don't vote in Israeli elections.

Your argument for why the results of ethnic cleansing should be made permanent is just fear mongering meant to appeal to bigotry and racism rather than reason.

All the ethnic cleansing was done by the Muslim side.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

BTW: I found out what the issue is with electricity and fuel. Hamas needs power to maintain the air supply to the tunnels, if the power goes out the tunnels are soon uninhabitable.

 

[Copernicus]

The real problem is that there are two different concepts of nationhood. The most popular one is that a nation should represent an ethnically homogeneous group--one language and culture predominates. You're in the club or you're out. The other concept is one that tolerates ethnic and cultural diversity where anyone willing to play by the rules is allowed into the club as an equal. Israel was conceived as an ethnically homogeneous club, and most Israelis don't want that to change. The two-state solution maintains the ethnically pure concept, even though Israelis are still basically of the same culture as Palestinian Muslims. The one-state solution follows the concept of tolerance for diversity, but the Jewish population would lose its dominance and control.

Except tolerance for diversity only works if the people tolerate diversity. A one-state solution produces a diverse society in which most people will not tolerate the diversity.

Yes, I grew up in such a society in the 1950s and 1960s, so I know what you are talking about. The narrative from those who opposed diversity was that integration was impossible, couldn't possibly work, and would never be accepted. The fact is that they weren't totally wrong. There are still people out there who can't accept that it wasn't the end of the world when some of those barriers to integration were removed.

In the case of Israel, the Jewish population will survive even in the face of becoming a very large minority of the population. Most people do, in fact, end up tolerating diversity quite nicely. Those of us who have lived in NYC--the most diverse population in the country--have discovered that it is really possible for very diverse peoples and cultures to live side by side in peace, counterintuitive as that may seem to you. In fact, a lot of Jews live in that city side by side with Muslims, Hindus, Christians, atheists, etc. It could happen even in an integrated Israel, crazy as that must seem. After all, 20% of the population of Israel already consists of Palestinians. But most Palestinian Arabs want the same thing that Israeli Jews do--peace and prosperity. They just have to learn to stop killing each other to get it.

 

[Arctish]

The Charter says:

6. The Palestinian people are one people, inside and outside of Palestine, irrespective of their religion, culture or political affiliation

^That^ includes Palestinian Jews.

What Palestinian Jews? Few people from before 1948 are left on either side.

The charter says that persons with Palestinian fathers are Palestinians. That includes a lot more Jews than just the old folks who were born in the area around Jerusalem before 1948.

I'm not surprised you choose to ignore entire communities of Jews when it's convenient and hold them up as examples when you want to make a different argument. It's all part of your bullshit schtick. I've come to expect it.

#16-#17--basically calling for the expulsion of the Jews.

Totally false.

The Charter says:

16. Hamas confirms that its conflict is with the Zionist project not with the Jews because of their religion. Hamas does not wage a struggle against the Jews because they are Jewish but against the Zionists who occupy Palestine. Yet is is the Zionists who constantly identify Judaism and the Jews with their own colonial project and illegal entry.

The Charter makes a clear distinction between Zionism and Judaism, and between Zionists and Jews. It clearly states that Hamas opposes Zionism but does not wage a struggle against Jews.

But by being in Israel they are Zionists. #16 is saying they aren't going after Jews elsewhere.

Being in Israel doesn't make someone a Zionist any more than being in Gaza makes someone an Islamist.

Sheesh, Loren. It appears Hamas knows more about Zionism than you do.

It also points out that Zionists frequently conflate Zionism and Judaism but there is a difference and Hamas recognizes it.

The Charter says:

17. Hamas rejects the persecution of any human being or the undermining of his or her rights on nationalist, religious or sectarian grounds. Hamas is of the view that the Jewish problem, anti-Semitism and the persecution of the Jews are phenomena fundamentally linked to European history and not to the history of the Arabs and the Muslims or to their heritage. The Zionist movement, which was able with the help of Western powers to occupy Palestine, is the most dangerous form of settlement occupation which has already disappeared from much of the world and must disappear from Palestine.

^This^ is a rejection of ethnic cleansing,

Settlement occupation--in other words, throw out anyone who moved to Israel.

What part of rejecting the persecution of any human being or the undermining of his or her rights on nationalist, religious or sectarian grounds do you not understand?

Suppose a peace deal is reached in which the illegal settlers who moved into the Occupied Territories in violation of international law have to apply for legal status and become citizens of the Palestinian State. Suppose most of them decided to move back to Israel. Would you call that ethnic cleansing?

It also echoes something David Ben-Gurion said about the Palestinian people having had nothing to do with the persecution that fueled the Zionist movement among the European Jews who illegally immigrated to Palestine in order to take the region for themselves.

You can't use the Hamas charter to support your claims. It doesn't say what you want it to say,

The problem is you are interpreting the words in a very favorable light--they are intended to look ok in a favorable light.

You've fallen for their deceptions hook, line and sinker. The "Occupied Territory" and the right of return aren't about the West Bank as they have deceived you into thinking, but about Israel itself.

As for evacuating the settlers by force if needed--they tried that in Gaza. It just made the situation worse.

You are dodging the question.

No, I'm addressing it. Right of return gives the Palestinians a majority. Israel is a democracy--next election the Palestinians will be in charge. Even if the government plays moderate it's not going to stop individual actions against Jews.

You are dodging the question. Why aren't you the most strident opponent of the building of settlements in the West Bank? Why don't you care that Jews are moving into situations you liken to being surrounded by hungry lions? I think it's because your argument is bullshit.

I consider the settlements a minor issue because I realize they are a red herring. Yes, they should not exist but the problem predates the existence of the settlements so unless there's a time machine involved they aren't the cause.

It is a major issue wrt your arguments whenever the Right of Return for Palestinians is mentioned.

Pick a lane.

Either you believe it is intolerably dangerous for Jews to live where they would be outnumbered by Christian and Muslim Palestinians, or it's not really a problem.

Here you are, making that same extremist all-or-nothing, dead-or-fled excluded middle fallacy whenever the Right of Return for Palestinians is mentioned, while at the same time you don't think it is a problem for non-Jews to outnumber Jews by a 4-1 margin in the West Bank.

It's not extremist--both sides recognize that's what would happen.

Both sides recognize what would happen? That if Jews lived in a place where they were outnumbered by non-Jewish Palestinians they'd like it so much they'd encourage others to join them?

And the West Bank does cause a problem that I have mentioned multiple times--a Jew who gets lost and enters a Palestinian area very well might be murdered. It doesn't cause an overall problem because the Palestinians are Jordanian, not Israeli, and don't vote in Israeli elections.

Your argument for why the results of ethnic cleansing should be made permanent is just fear mongering meant to appeal to bigotry and racism rather than reason.

All the ethnic cleansing was done by the Muslim side.

Bullshit.

You are ignoring your own posting history and the thoroughly documented history of the founding of Israel.

 

[bilby]

US also needs to be more forceful against Iran

Why does the US have to do anything? These places are thousands of miles from the US, and there's bugger all reason for the US to even take much of an interest, much less to "need to" do anything at all.

The only reason Iran has a problem with the US at all is that the US keeps interfering in Iran and her immediate neighbourhood. The only reason Iran is an Islamic theocracy is because the US thought it was a brilliant idea to go over there and fuck things up.

 

[TomC]

US also needs to be more forceful against Iran

Why does the US have to do anything? These places are thousands of miles from the US, and there's bugger all reason for the US to even take much of an interest, much less to "need to" do anything at all.

The only reason Iran has a problem with the US at all is that the US keeps interfering in Iran and her immediate neighbourhood. The only reason Iran is an Islamic theocracy is because the US thought it was a brilliant idea to go over there and fuck things up.

You're missing the obvious.
Not only does Iran have huge petroleum reserves themselves, they can control the whole gulf oil region.
Even if the USA were "energy independent", controlling that is stupendously strategic in terms of military power. "Iran the regional superpower" is a big threat to American hegemony.
Tom

 

[bilby]

US also needs to be more forceful against Iran

Why does the US have to do anything? These places are thousands of miles from the US, and there's bugger all reason for the US to even take much of an interest, much less to "need to" do anything at all.

The only reason Iran has a problem with the US at all is that the US keeps interfering in Iran and her immediate neighbourhood. The only reason Iran is an Islamic theocracy is because the US thought it was a brilliant idea to go over there and fuck things up.

You're missing the obvious.
Not only does Iran have huge petroleum reserves themselves, they can control the whole gulf oil region.
Even if the USA were "energy independent", controlling that is stupendously strategic in terms of military power. "Iran the regional superpower" is a big threat to American hegemony.
Tom

I'm not missing anything. Derec's comment was in the context of preventing terrorism against the US.

Being militarily dominant worldwide is an excellent way to ensure that you are the target of terrorism.

Attempting to stop terrorism by heavy handed tactics is like trying to fight a fire by spraying gasoline on it.

The price of hegemony is always that it makes you a target for terrorists.

 

[Harry Bosch]

US also needs to be more forceful against Iran

Why does the US have to do anything? These places are thousands of miles from the US, and there's bugger all reason for the US to even take much of an interest, much less to "need to" do anything at all.

The only reason Iran has a problem with the US at all is that the US keeps interfering in Iran and her immediate neighbourhood. The only reason Iran is an Islamic theocracy is because the US thought it was a brilliant idea to go over there and fuck things up.

If Biden hadn't put a couple carriers there in the initial stages, good chance that Iran and Hezbos would have joined in the terrorist attack. Far more people and civilians would be dead today. Much greater disruption to international trade. And etc.