Remix.run Logo
crossroadsguy 14 hours ago

As someone who absolutely hates American bullying of a hegemony. This is one case where I believe people of Iran might come out beneficial of it. In the long term? I am not so sure.

But will that happen? I doubt it. A country like America likes authoritarian regimes that like to listen to America. So Iranian things in the best interest of America would be the same theocracy but docile to America at least in the near future (or worse a full fledged military dictatorship which they anyway installed once).

However I just hope/dream (and it's too much of a hope) for the sake of Iranian people - it ends up getting a democracy after all (maybe).

However there is one thing clear - there is no rule based foreign relations, business, diplomacy anymore in this post truth world of ours. It's plain simple - you look after your own hind lest you find someone is at the door wanting to take it; might be an ally just as well.

A side note: I can't thank four of my country's ex PMs [0] enough that they ensured we had nukes inspite of stringent sanctions from other nations which ironically, among them, almost all already had nukes :D

The point is - we wish there were no nukes in our heating beautiful world; but tough luck, so you better get your own and get it soon.

[0] esp. Indira Ghandhi; also, probably the only head of sate that actually succeeded in "selling freedom" thing. Something America specialises in and uses as a premise to routinely reduce various parts of the world to rubble. A positive outcome of such endeavours - its defence industry getting push from it and of course it goes about trying to re-build it, giving push to other of its industries, half or quarter way and then finds other sundry places to subject to this routine.

koevet 13 hours ago | parent | next [-]

But wasn't Iran already docile to America? Sure, it wasn't a crystal clear ally like Saudi or the Gulf states, but behind the anti-Zionist propaganda and "evil US" blabbering, there were decades of backchannel negotiations, regional pragmatism, and even moments of cooperation — especially when mutual interests aligned, like in post-Taliban Afghanistan or the fight against ISIS.

slv77 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Iran sponsored insurgents in Iraq and provided the training and means to build explosively formed penetrators that killed 196 US troops:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2020/01/03/...

The US assassinated Soleimanis and Iran reponded with direct middle attacks on US bases:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Martyr_Soleimani

Iranian activity agains the US goes back decades and has escalated recently:

https://www.fdd.org/analysis/2025/06/19/iranian-and-iranian-...

Other than a brief thaw in relations in 2015 there is nothing that would suggest that Iran’s anti-US rhetoric is for domestic consumption and for show.

baxuz an hour ago | parent | next [-]

You mean troops from occupying forces that engaged in an illegal war to overthrow the government, based on lies about WMDs, who killed over 120,000 civilians?

As far as I'm aware, you don't get to project military force 8000 miles away and then complain about killed soldiers. Which has been the US' favourite past time since the 60s.

daveguy 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> explosively formed penetrators that killed 196 US troops...

Well, it's a good thing Trump completely neutralized retaliatory action against US troops. /s

slv77 4 hours ago | parent [-]

I’m not arguing for or against the merits of the recent strikes. I am disputing the notion that Iran’s anti-US stance is purely rhetoric for domestic consumption.

One of the arguments against limited strikes against the Iranians was that it would be simply stirring up the hornets nest and things spiraling out of control.

daveguy 3 hours ago | parent [-]

I agree. I was pointing out that these anti-US-troop actions by Iran were related to prior conflicts / actions by the US. There was unlikely any consideration to downstream reactions which will endanger our troops. Completely short-sighted warmongering.

PeterHolzwarth 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

America and the broader west (and even much of the not-west) has been working to counter Iran's nuclear ambitions for decades. A nuclear armed Iran means much the middle east, which considers Iran a dire enemy, would feel compelled to immediately launch their own nuclear weapons programs.

fakedang 13 hours ago | parent [-]

They could if they wanted to acquire nuclear weapons though. The Saudis explicitly funded the Pakistani nuclear programme with the option of access to nukes if required.

jraby3 3 hours ago | parent [-]

No way is KSA helping Iran.

crossroadsguy 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

No. Iran vehemently wanted nukes and the West (and its strong/rich local vassal states) vehemently didn't want Iran to have the nukes and Iran knew that and the West knew that Iran knew that. So no. (In fact SA has quite some money into Pakistani nukes; not sure what's the "access" agreements :P)

frollogaston 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I'm tired of hearing that American support for Israel is about supporting our hegemony, or about bullying for oil. This myth actually gives this relationship more support among Americans.

The truth is it doesn't benefit us at all, we simply do it because pro-Israel lobbies have a ton of power. Trump even diverted resources from Ukraine for this, and that war is really about US hegemony even though there's a moral aspect to it too.

fakedang 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> The point is - we wish there were no nukes in our heating beautiful world; but tough luck, so you better get your own and get it soon.

Exactly my thoughts. We were absolutely blessed to have been developing our own nuclear capabilities at a time of intense international scrutiny. We were sanctioned to oblivion by the West for that until they realized (after Pakistan too developed their nukes, comfortably) that you can't simply ignore the elephant in the room. And we paid for it dearly too (with the assassinations of leaders in our nuclear programme).

At this point, it should be expected of any rational self-serving sovereign nation that they should develop nukes, especially if they have a record of historical non-aggression. South Korea, modern Japan, the EU (especially those in direct threat of Russia like Poland)... I don't expect Germany to grow a pair to not rely on the US, any time in the near future.

PeterHolzwarth 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

"A country like America likes authoritarian regimes that like to listen to America."

I dunno. America seems to like Norway, and they don't seem particularly authoritarian.

dudefeliciano 12 hours ago | parent | next [-]

you forgot that they're white, they don't factor in in this conversation

hotmeals 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

If the Norwegians or anyone for that matter got uppity...

vbezhenar 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Trump will declare that his BIG BEAUTIFUL BOMBS won the war, nuclear facilities are no more. Israel cannot claim otherwise, because that would be against big brother. Iran will continue covertly making nuclear bomb, but that will take more years, and will continue peace talks for now. Trump will get Nobel peace prize for peaceful bombing and will be happy.

rocqua 11 hours ago | parent | next [-]

There's a whole escalation you are forgetting. Iran will retaliate, to which the US wilk respond. That yields a situation where neither side can back out, but neither is putting enough pressure in the other to force them to stop.

The way through seems limited to:

- ground invasion - nuclear annihilation - regime change (no guarantee of success)

If the regime change doesn't work, the options are horrible. And remember that the current Iran regime is the result of a US backed regime change, which allowed radical elements to mobilize hatred against the US.

crossroadsguy 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

As if Israel has been giving two flying fracks about what big brother would think. Besides Israel as a nation is too cunning to not be able to subdue someone as dumb and facetious as Trump with flattery alone.

Trump getting Nobel - yes, knowing who all the Swedes have given it to I won't be surprised at all.

rightbyte 5 hours ago | parent [-]

Norway's parliament vote who to give Nobel's peace price, not the comittee.