| ▲ | stale2002 a day ago |
| > I mean, the Iranian regime has had one goal the whole war: survive. No it wasn't. If Iran's only goal is to survive then it would have made peace with the USA and surrounding Middle Eastern territories decades ago. This whole war is happening because Iran had great political ambitions than just thriving on its own. Iran has been funding proxy terrorist groups for a long time now, specifically because it is trying to achieve larger goals than just surviving. And on those fronts, well those proxy groups have taken a ton of damage and aren't long for this world. |
|
| ▲ | rcxdude a day ago | parent | next [-] |
| I'm not talking about beforehand (I said 'the whole war' for a reason). When the US attacked Iran, the Iranian government were either going to fight the war or they (the individuals that made up most of that government) were going to die. It's not surprising they are picking the first option by any means necessary, regardless of how they got into the situation in the first place. It's also what made the attack a very high-stakes gamble on the part of the US government, because either the somehow the Iranian government was going to crumble quickly in the attack (despite the best efforts of people who are quite literally fighting for their lives and still quite widespread support amongst the population), or the US was going to find itself embroiled in yet another overseas war with dubious benefits and high costs. To be clear, I have a level of love for the Iranian government that makes me think the first option is perhaps a little too good for them, but it still doesn't make the US's strategic decisions make sense. |
| |
| ▲ | stale2002 17 hours ago | parent [-] | | > the Iranian government were either going to fight the war You missed the perfectly reasonable 3rd option. Iran could stop shooting missiles at oil tankers, stop funding proxy groups, and make an arrangement for peace. We both know though, that they are unwilling to do that. Because peace was never their goal. Instead, they wanted to achieve regional hegemony, and funded proxy groups to do that. But whatever, look how well that worked out for them. Sure, if taking out the regime is the only pathway to stop Iran from continuing on its current path, then the USA is of course going to try that. But if there was an actual path the peace here, where Iran simply stopped its attacks, things could get back to normal fairly quickly. | | |
| ▲ | hardbass 16 hours ago | parent [-] | | Israel can stop attacking and taking over land of random sovereign countries, shooting missiles into peaceful countries like Dubai. What is stopping them? | | |
| ▲ | viler 14 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Israel has shot a grand total of zero missiles at Dubai. Which is not a country; the country is UAE, at which Iran has launched some 2,500 missiles. What's stopping Israel from attacking "random" countries? Perhaps the fact that they're hardly "random", rather they all host proxy groups of the occupying regime in Iran, who have very openly been subverting those countries into bases from which to attack Israel. Try again. | | |
| ▲ | hardbass 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | I misremembered. Israel fired a missile at a hotel in Qatar killing civilians. If you have a problem with proxies, then Iran has the right to shoot down and occupy most of Europe and Australia as they have been American proxies for long and they are supplying their bases and infrastructure for Americans to launch attacks on Iran from. Iran also as far as I am aware has never sprayed chemical poisons on foreign countries farms to kill their food supply. Israel has. How many of the Iranian attacks in the gulf were not those fired at American bases and soldiers in those countries? |
| |
| ▲ | stale2002 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > What is stopping them? The militant groups obviously. If peace isn't possible of course Israel is going to play to win. Israel was perfectly able to make peace with Egypt and jordan, for example, and they aren't invading them. | | |
| ▲ | hardbass 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Egypt gets paid a lot of money by America for "reasons". The gulf arab states are dictatorships so its hard to gauge the actual population's sentiment. These two are still a bit far away. Israel sees borders and country maps as optional things, what military value do you think is there is Israeli thugs under IDF protection barging into and stealing other peoples homes in other countries? They are never content with their border and want to keep expanding. | | |
| ▲ | stale2002 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Egypt gets paid Oh great proving my point. They get to be at peace and get paid money to do so. Looks like a good deal all around. I guess peace is possible with the surrounding countries after all right? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | istjohn a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| This whole war is happening because after his easy coup in Venezuela, Trump thought he could just do it again in Iran, and now he can't extricate himself without losing face. And American politicians on both sides of the aisle are subserviant to Israel. |
|
| ▲ | OkayPhysicist a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| They did make peace with the US. It was a whole thing, papers were signed, agreements were made, they pinky-promised to not make nukes, everyone walked away happy. Except the Israelis, who don't like their regional power status being challenged, and apparently Trump, who... didn't like that the Iranians gave up on their nuclear armament program? Either way, the US and Iran were at peace right up until we decided to pull out of our disarmament treaty with them. And then executed a decapitation strike against them. |
| |
| ▲ | viler 13 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Yep. They "pinky-promised" and continued enriching Uranium to 60%, which is completely unnecessary for any civilian use of nuclear power. Not only has the IAEA openly called it out, but actual officials of the occupying Islamic regime in Iran have now pretty much admitted that they have always been going for nukes. [1] [2] The only thing JCPOA did was funnel billions into their hands so they could continue oppressing their own population within their own borders, and destabilizing the entire region outside of them. [1] https://www.thetimes.com/world/asia/article/ex-nuclear-chief...
[2] https://www.iranintl.com/en/202204245312 | | |
| ▲ | hardbass 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | It is simply common sense for any country not America to build powerful nukes and defenses against America. America has a habit of randomly attacking countries for imaginary or greedy reasons. |
| |
| ▲ | drnick1 a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Iranians gave up on their nuclear armament program? They never gave up. The plan was always to lie and get sanction relief from the West, in order to to sell oil and fund Islamist terrorism throughout the region and the world. It isn't only about the nukes. Fundamentally, this is about containment of a dangerous anti-Western ideology. Same thing in Cuba. | | |
| ▲ | hardbass 16 hours ago | parent [-] | | If it is about containing anti-western ideology why isn't American launching a Stuxnet on Israeli nukes? | | |
| ▲ | viler 14 hours ago | parent [-] | | Because Israel isn't the one who, I don't know, has been in open declared war on the US for 47 years ago and has turned "death to America" into its official stated policy. The Islamic Republic is. Your only defense of the astounding level of evil represented by the occupying regime in Iran is to keep frothing at the mouth about Israel? That shows quite a lot. Try again. | | |
| ▲ | hardbass 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | Iran hasn't killed innocent British cizitens and officers in terrorist attacks continually for years. Iran hasn't attacked America. Iranian citizens haven't been as a trend found spying on America and funneling documents to their country for years. Iran isn't randomly expanding into other sovereign countries lands. Iran is shit to its people but it doesn't start random wars into random countries for no reason. Israel does all of the above. |
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | potatototoo99 a day ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Their goals are to survive and control the strait of Ormuz. And they will do both because eventually the US will pull out, because to try to hold the strait is a financial drain. Just like Afghanistan. So it's a waiting game and everyone knows Iran will win. Orange man can say he won every day and after a year, 5 years, 10 years, 50 years eventually the US will have to admit defeat. |
| |
| ▲ | drnick1 20 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > Their goals are to survive and control the strait of Ormuz. The surrounding states, which have been attacked by Iran and use the strait to export their oil, should grow a pair, close their borders with Iran, and use all the weapons they bought over the years from the U.S. and finish off once and for all the "Islamic Republic." It seems that, at last, the Saudis are stepping up to the plate and doing something about the Houthis. This is all because they did not finish the job last time. | |
| ▲ | stale2002 a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Their goals are to survive As I just said before, if this was their only goal, they could have had it decades ago by choosing peace instead of funding proxy milita groups en mass. The fact that they fund all they proxy groups shows that actually yes they have other goals beyond surviving (They they are quickly failing to achieve as their proxy groups get dismantled), and they are actually willing to risk war and risk their survival to attempt to achieve them. | | |
| ▲ | GeorgeWBasic a day ago | parent [-] | | Quite the contrary. It doesn't matter what Iran does: their crime is existing without being under the control of the US. The US installed a puppet regime in Iran in 1953, and had a powerful vassal in the middle east, close to the Soviet Union. They freed themselves in 1979, gaining control of their own resources, and the US never forgave them for it. The only way the US would have allowed them to go on existing without attacking would be for them to become slaves again. | | |
| ▲ | viler 13 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The whole tale of the 1953 supposed US "coup" has been started and amplified by Soviet propaganda, then taken up by the Islamists and their wilful servants, as we can see here. The coup was Mosaddegh's; the Shah prevented it. Read some real history. As for "freeing" themselves in 1979... please talk to some actual Iranians and ask them how much of their country's resources are actually benefitting them, instead of going to regional terror proxies and into enriching corrupt Mullahs so that their sons and daughters could go live in luxury in the West they so despise. Ask them, too, how "free" they really feel. | |
| ▲ | istjohn a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | You're forgetting that a perfectly serviceable truce was established with the JCPOA until Trump tore it up to satisfy Israeli interests. | | |
| ▲ | drnick1 a day ago | parent | next [-] | | JCPOA was horrible. It was a lifeline to the regime and allowed it to build a massive arsenal of drones, ballistic missiles, etc., while it got to keep underground enrichment facilities. That nuclear program did not have a civilian purpose, its sole purpose was projecting power in the region and intimidating Israel. The only durable way achieve peace in the Mideast is the collapse of Iran and of its regional proxies. Disarming Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis is a necessity before things like rebuilding Gaza is possible at all. | | |
| ▲ | viler 13 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Mostly yes. Just a small correction - Iran does not need to collapse; its occupying Islamic regime does. It's what has already driven Iran into pretty much a state of collapse already; when it's gone Iran can be rebuilt. | |
| ▲ | hardbass 16 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | It is simply common sense for any country that is not the USA to develop nukes against the USA. It doesn't matter what your morality is or if you are a dictatorship or democracy, the USA just gets strange ideas and starts shooting and bombing random countries sometimes. | |
| ▲ | GeorgeWBasic a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | "The only durable way achieve peace in the Mideast is the collapse of Israel and of its regional proxies" There, fixed it for you. No charge. | | |
| ▲ | viler 13 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | What are Israel's "regional proxies", and how have they been acting against peace in the region in any way that's more destabilizing than Hamas, Hezbollah, Hashd ash-Shaabi, the Houthis, the Fatimioun, the Zainabioun, and all those other tentacles of the occupying Islamic regime in Iran? | |
| ▲ | stale2002 17 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Israel has 100+ nuclear weapons dude. And if it was in any real danger of actually being collapsed, I can promise you that it would use them. You better hope that never happens and instead Iran makes peace with them. | | |
| ▲ | hardbass 16 hours ago | parent [-] | | Excellent, that clearly shows who is the volatile ultra terroristic madman in the region. All the more reason to check Israel right now. | | |
| ▲ | stale2002 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | > that clearly shows Its called mutually assured destruction bro. Every country in the world would use their nukes if they were actually under threat of destruction. Thats the point of having nukes. For them to be used as a deterent against collapse. > All the more reason to check They have the nukes already dude! They aren't going away. They aren't going to be destroyed. And the nukes don't disappear just because funding stops going to them. The point being, the destruction of Israel would just result in all of their enemies being destroyed along with them, so you better hope it doesn't happen. | | |
| ▲ | hardbass 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Israel doesn't need to be destroyed. The best time to solve the Israeli problem was of course during 1947. Its unfortunate that Britain got so weak at that point, ideally they should have instituted a militant zero tolerance marshal law there and shot on sight any Israeli or Arab terrorist. Israel can still be peacefully south africaed. | | |
| ▲ | stale2002 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Israel can still be peacefully They aren't going to massively change their demographics. They will never agree to that, and they would have to be invaded to achieve anything close to that. Which brings up back to them haveing 100+ nuclear weapons. This goal of destroying israel, or massively changing their demographics has caused hundreds of thousands of arabs to die, over and over again, wasting on a doomed goal, seeing as Israel has a modern military and nuclear weapons that they would absolutely use if their military was at risk of being defeat. The actual peaceful solutions look something like Jordan or Egypt, which are perfectly able to be at peace. | | |
| ▲ | hardbass 6 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Its not about arabs. I said south africa to mean hardline global sanctions and refusal to trade. If they want to nuke everyone just because people don't like trading with them, they are free to demonstrate their psychosis. Public opinion in the USA is changing, who knows what the future holds. If US support vanishes, Israel will have to scale down their hyperterrorism by a lot. Again, the best solution would have been if Britain had refused to budge against Zionist terrorist attacks on innocent Brits, and instead prosecuted and executed them brutally, instituted a ruthless and militant martial rule there and shot all agitators on sight, and also done things like tax breaks for mixed marriages, etc. Since that golden opportunity for sanity and stability is gone, we have to see what the current options are. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | stale2002 17 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | No, actually. Iran did not stop funding proxy militant groups. If Iran stopped funding Hezbollah then real peace could have been achieved. | | |
| ▲ | hardbass 16 hours ago | parent [-] | | If Israel stopped randomly invading sovereign countries and launching missiles anywhere and everywhere into unrelated foreign countries like Dubai, spraying chemical toxins on farms in random countries, then real peace could have been achieved. |
| |
| ▲ | GeorgeWBasic a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | That's true: Obama bucked the trend. Overall, there were still many powerful interests in the US who despised Iran waiting to take power. I'd still call it just a matter of time. |
| |
| ▲ | stale2002 17 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > 1953 You are going to go back a whole 70 years to make your point? Isn't it time to get over it? All the surrounding governments are at peace with everyone else. Iran could have had the same thing if it wanted. All it had to do what stop funding proxy militant groups. | | |
| ▲ | Dylan16807 16 hours ago | parent [-] | | > You are going to go back a whole 70 years to make your point? Isn't it time to get over it? The US government needing to get over it is their point. Also the relevant year they're going back to is 1979. | | |
| ▲ | stale2002 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | > The US government The US government is perfectly able to make peace with countries like Egypt and Jordan. Because those countries aren't funding proxy groups to destabilize the region. As soon as Iran stops shooting missiles at tankers and stops funding militant groups, peace would be achieved. |
|
|
|
|
|
