| ▲ | jameslk 11 hours ago |
| This is not the end. This is the beginning of another Iraq war, set up exactly the same way: claiming, with dubious proof, an imminent risk from weapons of mass destruction. Iran’s options here are to bomb US bases, which are a lot closer by, mine the Strait of Hormuz, blow up oil infrastructure in nearby countries who are harboring US bases. This might risk Iran a much larger war but the alternative of doing nothing and showing the world they won’t defend themselves is worse. The US will again bankroll another big, more expensive war to the tune of trillions more in debt. Another decade of war ahead with no end in sight. Meanwhile, new enemies will be made for the US as a young generation grows up living through this. The cycle repeats. |
|
| ▲ | czhu12 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| I could be wrong in the end, but my read is that there really isn't the appetite anywhere near the levels during post 9/11 or cold war to enter a war. Not in the US, and likely not in Iran either. Its hard to think of a full scale war that was started by the U.S. that didn't have popular approval at the time it was launched. |
| |
| ▲ | alkonaut 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The lack of appetite in the US didn’t stop this. And the lack of appetite among normal Iranians won’t matter much. War is better for regime survival than peace. This is a country ruled by a very scared elite that isn’t held accountable for anything and whose only means of survival is creating continuous distractions from domestic failures. And it’s similar in Iran. | | |
| ▲ | abcd_f 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > And it’s similar in Iran. Nice. | | |
| ▲ | alkonaut 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | Thanks. Autocrat jokes basically writing themselves at this point. |
| |
| ▲ | gpt5 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The Iranian regime has gone through serious military blows in the past and survived. Their best course of action is de-escalation and regaining domestic control. | | |
| ▲ | alkonaut 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | Yes I was primarily thinking about regime survival in Washington, not Teheran. |
| |
| ▲ | czottmann 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I wish I could upvote this more than once. Well said. | |
| ▲ | ReptileMan 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | >War is better for regime survival than peace. Not when your adversary has air superiority and they can just kill at will the leaders and elite and not the schmucks. Israel's tactics is to kill important people and links. | | |
| ▲ | alkonaut 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Iran doesn’t have air superiority (you probably misread which countries’ regime I meant…) | | |
| ▲ | ReptileMan 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | Probably. Since of the three involved only Iran has a regime. The other two have democratically elected governments. | | |
| ▲ | tsimionescu 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | A democratically elected government that then flaunts the law and the constitution, such as illegally attacking another country without congressional approval, is a regime. Particularly when it has historically low approval ratings. | | |
| ▲ | ReptileMan 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | >But Trump is still running ahead of his approval rating at this point in his first term. And at this point in his second term, he’s actually running slightly ahead of Obama and Bush at this point in their second terms. From Rey Teixeira. So obviously not historically low. |
| |
| ▲ | zelphirkalt 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Israel's government is probably only in power as long as they continue to start and wage war against countries in the neighborhood. It was very convenient for them, that the attack of October 7th happened, just when ten thousands of people went on the streets to protest against their attempt to take away power from the judges and elevate themselves. In the US the election might have been tempered with, according to newest reports, so the government might not even be actually democratically elected and Trump is playing the autocrat's playbook, going as far as arresting political opponents without a warrant. Iran no question there. That makes 3 out of 3 in my book. I am not so sure your statement is footed on a solid base these days. | | |
| ▲ | samrus 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | lets not go crazy here. israel didnt conduct those attacks as a false flag to dodge the regime change | | |
| ▲ | zelphirkalt 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Lets not jump to conclusions here, about what I meant. There are other possibilities, that you are not considering. | |
| ▲ | owebmaster 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | all my allies are heroes and my enemies degenerates |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | zelphirkalt 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I think you need to take a look at Gaza and revise a little about Israeli tactics. | |
| ▲ | samrus 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | how long did it take to kill bin laden, the most wanted man on the planet? and what happened to afghanistan more than a decade after he was actually killed this isnt software bro. its probabilistic and has high variance. even then the expected value is vietnam | | | |
| ▲ | youngtaff 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Iran will just employ asymmetrical means of defense and it will go on for years Israel’s decades long subjugation of the Palestinian people hasn’t brought them closer to peace | | |
| ▲ | karmakurtisaani 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Israel’s decades long subjugation of the Palestinian people hasn’t brought them closer to peace Recent events have convinced me the goal is not peace, but extermination. | | |
| ▲ | zelphirkalt 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | That will be hard to do with a whole Iraq in between. I don't think Israel's military has what it takes. They already struggled in Gaza and are on the lifeline of US support. US could probably not even do it with massive amount of effort, and it would turn into a second Vietnam for them. Without troops on the ground no chance anyway. | | |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | lonelyasacloud 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > Its hard to think of a full scale war that was started by the U.S. that didn't have popular approval at the time it was launched. There's not been a President like the current incumbent. | |
| ▲ | samrus 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | that read would have predicted the US not bombing not bombing iran, and yet here we are. the current administration doesnt care what people want. trumps own base is against and they'll still do it. the "nothing ever happens" bet is not looking likely. with the calculus trump and netenyahu have shown, this looks like its heading towards US boots in iran | |
| ▲ | UmGuys 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Trump only wants to get richer. He'll do as many wars as he can get away with. Laws don't matter anymore. He just struck Iran because he felt like it and announced it on his social media network. This is beyond Idoicracy. | | |
| ▲ | powerapple 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | You think the not-Trump president would do something different? Not an American, but I have assumed the outcome would be the same. | | |
| ▲ | UmGuys 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | Yes. Trump shredded the deal we had in place an decided on his own to strike without congress. No one else would have done this. | | |
| ▲ | palmfacehn 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-preside... >...decided on his own to strike without congress. The US defense establishment has been looking to attack Iran for decades. "Decided on his own", seems inaccurate in this regard. The outrage over unauthorized uses of military force is largely performative partisan outrage. Although I would personally regard it as unconstitutional, it is the established norm for US Presidents to order airstrikes. There are very few politicians who have been consistent in their opposition to this. | | |
| ▲ | UmGuys 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Sure. Make a technical analysis of a casual comment. Of course he has support from others. At the very least defense contractors who profit from this. My comment was from his perspective. He only cares to get richer. There's always been an authorization for military force even if it's a blanket one and they claim they're fighting ISIS, at least there has been deniability. Here there's no authorization, it's unconstitutional. I don't care about partisan politics. Most politicians are scummy. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | medlazik 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Missiles don't sell themselves | |
| ▲ | wat10000 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | It’s hard to think of another president with a huge number of such dedicated followers, who actively hates the mass of Americans who don’t support him, and with a Congress so unwilling to exercise its power. Let’s say Trump decides to order an invasion. What would happen then? Mass protests? Surely. Impeachment? No way. Military decides enough is enough and removes him? Definitely not. He realizes how unpopular this move is and backs down? Lol. Lmao. |
|
|
| ▲ | markus_zhang 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| My hunch is Iran will bomb a US base, not causing any real damage, as a tough gesture and continue striking Israel. |
|
| ▲ | navane 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| What I'm missing is that as one by one middle eastern countries are stomped to the curb, finding a balance between the countries gets harder. The more functional countries there are, the more room for negotiation, realignment, factions, and thus stability. We should want a muddy mess of interlinked allies. If after Egypt, Lybia, Syria, Iraq now Iran gets stomped, it's easier for the remaining powers to swing hard left out right instead of to continue muddying forward. |
|
| ▲ | Narretz 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| That's a big leap. Nothing suggests a ground operation or occupation, which was the most costly part of the Iraq war, and importantly, was part of it from the beginning. Experience suggests that Trump would rather walk away from Iran after an exchange of strikes and claim victory then double down in a land war. |
| |
| ▲ | zelphirkalt 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | Which experience is that? | | |
| ▲ | Narretz 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | Trump's handling of military strikes/operations, which have been mostly symbolic. Killing Soleimani, and not retaliating to the retaliationary strikes. A completely useless strike on Shayrat airbase in Syria. Pulling out of Yemen strikes this year because it was ineffective (never admitting to this though). Trump wants to be known as a deal maker. I don't think that has changed, he's just become more delusional regarding the practicality. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | huhtenberg 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Change of the Iran regime would help lessening the risk of a prolonged war. From what can be glanced from the news seeping through it seems that the population has been largely ready for it for a while now. |
| |
| ▲ | UmGuys 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | What is this commentary? We literally just attacked them. We punched them in the face. We're doing the war. Not them. | | |
| ▲ | huhtenberg 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | You must be trolling. In case you are not - the US attacked their nuclear research facilities. This is as far removed from attacking "them", as Iranian people, as it gets. | | |
| ▲ | karmakurtisaani 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | So if China strategically bombed some US weapons research facilities, that would be just fine and normal? | |
| ▲ | UncleMeat 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | If Al Qaeda had just managed to fly planes into the Pentagon, would we somehow have decided "oh that's not really an attack on us?" | |
| ▲ | zabzonk 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Because of course no Iranian people work at those bombed sites. | |
| ▲ | UmGuys 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | ??? WTF are you on. If Iran bombs US research facilities it's okay? I don't understand at all. | |
| ▲ | logicchains 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | You're the one who must be trolling. If China bombed American nuclear research facilities, I can't imagine many Americans would agree it's "not an attack on the American people". |
|
| |
| ▲ | UncleMeat 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | We changed the regime in both Afghanistan and Iraq. That worked great at preventing a prolonged war. This "oh the Iranians actually want to be bombed" stuff is absolutely nonsense. | |
| ▲ | throwawaynagain 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I think you meant to say: Change of the US regime would help lessening the risk of a prolonged war. From what can be glanced from the news seeping through it seems that the population has been largely ready for it for a while now. | | |
|
|
| ▲ | logicchains 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| >Meanwhile, new enemies will be made for the US as a young generation grows up living through this. It's also breeding a generation of young Americans that consider Israel their enemy: https://time.com/6958957/growing-antisemitism-young-american... |
| |
| ▲ | zelphirkalt 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | If these young Americans actually want to stand for any noble values, they better see Israel as an enemy, because otherwise they would be utter hypocrites. Currently there are few countries in the world, that act more despicable than Israel. Russia probably, but which else? I mean, what they do is state organized terrorism and the US outright supports it. |
|
|
| ▲ | PeterHolzwarth 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Dubious proof?! Iran has been blatantly pursuing nuclear weapons for decades - and the west (along with much of the rest of the world and the middle east) has been working to counter it the whole time. Remember that in the middle east, Iran is considered a dire enemy. |
| |
| ▲ | gghhzzgghhzz 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | If it wanted nuclear weapons, it would just buy some from Pakistan. Their actions do not follow the conclusion you state. What is clear now though to any Iranian is that they should get nuclear weapons asap.
Diplomacy is just a tool used by the west to string you along while they get ready to bomb you | |
| ▲ | rocqua 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | It is very likely false that Iran had nuclear weapons, or was within weeks of having them. This was also the position of US intelligence, until they were forced by higher-ups to speak different words. Of course, Iran very much wanted the ability to make a nuke, and they probably could have had one ready in 1 or 2 years. But the proof put forward in defense of this strike is claiming Iran was weeks away from nukes. That proof is dubious. (Also interesting to consider how US retreat from the nuclear deal under Trump 1 has affected and shaped the current situation) | |
| ▲ | ExoticPearTree 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > Remember that in the middle east, Iran is considered a dire enemy. It's a dire enemy because they're Shia and the rest (with some exception in Eastern Saudi Arabia) are Sunni. | |
| ▲ | jameslk 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Yes, dubious proof. A quick Google search can reveal this claim has been bs for decades, consistently evaluated by the US’ own intelligence, up until a day ago [0] But that doesn’t matter anymore 0. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c056zqn6vvyo | |
| ▲ | littlestymaar 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | No it hasn't, you don't sit on 60%-enriched Uranium for 3 years (they announced it back in 2022!) if you plan to make a bomb. IAEA also confirmed that Iran didn't have ongoing military nuclear project. The reason why they raised their enrichment level was to raise their bargaining power to force the US to come back to the negotiation table in an attempt to get rid of the sanctions. They almost succeeded since US and Iran were supposed to meet last Sunday, but that was not taking Israel into account, which killed the chief negotiator and convinced Trump to bomb Iran just 3 days in the “two weeks” negotiation deadline he had set earlier this week. |
|
|
| ▲ | rocqua 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Do you think there will be boots on the ground? It seems more likely to me that Trump will escalate only through air attacks, fail to achieve much, and then either end the war by walking away, or throwing nukes. Quite different from the Iraq war. |