The UK and America destroyed Iranian democracy and installed a police state in it's place. There is no "death to Europe" or "death to jews" anywhere in their slogans, because they specifically want to destroy their neocolonial occupiers. As an American myself, I empathize with individuals that fight for the freedom of their people. The founding fathers of America extolled the values of self-determination, and I agree with their reasoning more than I see the logic in Trump's expensive, taxpayer-funded war.

Look at your argument from the European or Indopacific perspective - why does a nation like China or India need to participate in a joint blockade? What is the value in attacking Iran for a nation like Pakistan or Egypt? The American goal of "stop them from making a nuke" is clearly not possible from an air campaign, and nobody but Israel is in Iran's crosshairs. The Gulf states all have fragile economies that won't survive the type of asymmetrical conflict that America is equipped to wage. Even rebel groups like the Kurds don't see any promise in attacking Iran, and have told American diplomats that they're on their own. They all know that the promises are empty, and a broken or Balkanized Iran would be the end of their regional stability.

Interventionism is not a helpful policy for Iran's people. Arabs know it, Europeans know it and most of the Americans and Israelis know it too. The status-quo is only confusing if you assume that the Arab and European states are run by morons that want to destroy the Middle East.

▲

_DeadFred_ 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Wait, what does this have to do with hanible directive? I'm confused you are all over the place.

>There is no "death to Europe" or "death to jews"' "nobody but Israel is in Iran's crosshairs"

Iran's UK embassy called for attacks in the UK yesterday, and attacks in the UK happened today against random jews.

'The status quo is fine because Iran only calls for the death of the USA and Israel, and that is justified and totally isn't responsible in part for anything that is happening , and Iran only tried to kill a few people in Europe, and they are only jews, and Iran can't target Europe (other than the attempted murders instigated publicly by their diplomats in the UK)'.

That didn't happen. And if it did, it wasn't that bad. And if it was, that's not a big deal. And if it is, that's not Iran's fault. And if it was, Iran didn't mean it. And if Iran did, the US/Israel/random UK jews stabbed deserved it.

▲

bigyabai 2 hours ago | parent [-]

So again - look at your position from the Indopacific or Arab perspective. Why would violence against UK citizens compel them to join the war against Iran? What do they have to gain in exchange for the risk to their economy, service members and homeland security?

The UK has already chosen a side, they're not being singled-out by random.

▲

_DeadFred_ 2 hours ago | parent [-]

When did a discussion on US war cost become constrained to the Indo-Pacific point of view and how does that tie back to your hanible directive comment?

You seem to have shifted focus after I countered your claim that Iranian violence wasn't a threat to Europe with an example of Iranian violence in Europe from today.

Violence instigated by the official Iranian embassy delegation to the UK. Conducted/called for publicly by Iranian officials in the UK. Conducted against random jewish people because they were jewish and in the UK (a valid target for random civilian attacks in your opinion I guess because 'The UK has already chosen a side, they're not being singled-out by random.')?

Funny how you jumped from number 1. Iran isn't a threat to Europe all the way to 6 on the narcissists prayer with 'The random UK jew deserved the stabling because the UK picked a side'.

	▲	bigyabai an hour ago \| parent [-]
		You're the one that threadjacked this discussion, I was hoping you'd be able to explain how the UK's political decisions impact the conflict. My original statement is that Iran does not present a credible nuclear threat to the United States. The justification for the war is an outright lie, the "dangerous new world" saber rattling has been criticized by defense analysts for the 40+ years it haunted Israeli state media. Retaliatory terrorism in the UK is not going to cause the global stage to reevaluate their position in the US/Iran conflict, your original comment upstream is just more reason not to enable America's war. > and how does that tie back to your hanible directive comment? I mentioned the Hannibal directive once in this thread, to illustrate the dirt-poor optics of war with Iran. You've brought it up three times now. Insecure much?