No it doesn’t.

The post was replying to this:

>Iran doesn't use any of these to attack America.

This is false, as the post explained.

Saying “what about the US attacking Iran?” does not change the above being false. In fact the US attacking Iran does not change the above false either.

Even if we accept both things as true:

1. Iran has historically attacked the US 2. The US has historically destabilized/attacked Iran

It doesn’t change the fact that “Iran does not use any of these (proxy groups) to attack America” is a false statement.

Skip me with your emotional arguments because I’ll just think you’re posturing and just trying to advance your agenda :-)

There is a difference between "attack" (that has a connotation of being unprovoked and in bad faith) and "retaliation" against acts of drawing first blood.

More so if those primary attacks had 50K killed by way of proxies (100K according to more realistic estimates).

Sometimes, what one dishes out, comes back. If it does, rest of the world thinks it is only fair. Yes Iran has been retaliating, very weakly, to counterbalance attacks on itself by the US and its proxies.

There is not much doubt on who acted in bad faith first.

The US hurting its toe by kicking a stone and then complaining that it is the stone that attacked is not a good argument.