221 Comments
User's avatar
Niv P's avatar

Bad but what’s done is done. Need diplomacy to win from here on forward.

Expand full comment
Usually Wash's avatar

Good. I don't see what the downside is. Iran has a pretty high human capital population, unlike say Iraq, but their regime chants "Death to America" and hacks our childrens' hospitals. Nowhere to go from here but up.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/iranian-backed-hackers-targeted-boston-childrens-hospital-fbi-chief-says-2022-06-01/

Expand full comment
Kathleen Lowrey's avatar

High IQ populace that bombs children in hospitals: so you are saying we should hit Israel next?

Expand full comment
Usually Wash's avatar

No. Firstly, they don't hack OUR children's hospitals. Second, Israel hits hospitals because of things like this. Even Amnesty International admitted that Shifa had military use. Third, Iran doesn't have for example over 15% of NVIDIA's workforce.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/idf-650-terrorists-including-hamas-officers-detained-in-shifa-hospital-raid-so-far/

Iran fired a ballistic missile at a hospital in Beersheba. Why do you think they that? Tell me when the Iranians find 650 IDF commanders in a raid on a Beersheba hospital. Probably just to give online people like you a talking point.

Expand full comment
Peter Defeel's avatar

There were a lot more hospitals bombed than shifa. And tents after the doctors left the hospitals. Not too many tunnels under there.

Expand full comment
Usually Wash's avatar

Hamas enjoys using lots of hospitals for military purposes. Not just Shifa that they used as a command center.

Expand full comment
Peter Defeel's avatar

The UN pretty much denies that. But it doesn’t matter. The rules of war don’t allow you to bomb inhabited buildings without warning, and these hospitals were functioning. It’s a war crime. And potentially genocide

Expand full comment
Usually Wash's avatar

Whether it’s a war crime or not, it’s not at all the same as what Iran does, hacking American children’s hospitals that obviously have no military use. Israel doesn’t hack America’s hospitals.

Expand full comment
Usually Wash's avatar

Also who gives a fuck about the UN?

Expand full comment
Usually Wash's avatar

Good also because a nuclear Iran means a nuclear Saudi Arabia. I don't want a nuclear arms race where more Muslim countries get a nuke. Pakistan is worrying enough already.

Expand full comment
Kelly Harbeson's avatar

The Saudis financed the Pakistani nuclear program. I suspect that they can aquire nukes pretty easily and have only foregone doing so for the sake of plausible deniability. The Saudis know if the Ayatollahs get nuclear weapons the Sunni kingdoms will be next after the Jews.

Expand full comment
Usually Wash's avatar

Yeah. I guess I trust MBS with a nuke, but what if there is a coup? What if the Egyptians get it next? What if you get more proliferation? Nuclear nonproliferation is good in general.

Expand full comment
Kelly Harbeson's avatar

If I can be honest, I think the chances that a coup that will allow radicals to get their hands on a nuke is as likely to happen in France, Germany or Great Britain as in Saudi Arabia.

Expand full comment
Usually Wash's avatar

Germany doesn't have nukes. Pro-Islamist leftists like Corbyn and Melenchon generally favor denuclearization.

Expand full comment
Kelly Harbeson's avatar

Germany may not have nukes but France and Britain certainly do. And for all the leftists' call for de-nuclearization I haven't seen any sign of it happening.

Expand full comment
barnabus's avatar

Yep, that's why everyone is watching Britain and France. Especially Britain with their Two-Tier Keir being Director of Public Prosecutions while suppressing judicial info re Rotherham etc was in the works.

Expand full comment
Andrew's avatar

I didn’t vote for this. Hope for the best…

Expand full comment
Eugine Nier's avatar

> I didn’t vote for this.

Speak for yourself.

Expand full comment
Usually Wash's avatar

I didn't vote for it either since I did not vote for Trump.

Expand full comment
Erik's avatar

I think he did.

Expand full comment
Peter Defeel's avatar

Nobody did.

Expand full comment
Saboteur's avatar

Terrible idea. Israel is the Middle East's biggest warmonger.

Expand full comment
Dan Ashman's avatar

Muslims start every war against Israel. Then afterwards they cry about losing.

Expand full comment
barnabus's avatar

They could have had so much Palestine if they agreed 1947 to the Partition or even more in 1936 Peel.

Expand full comment
Alan, aka DudeInMinnetonka's avatar

They got Jordan 🤷

70 plus percent of Jewish land was gifted to the hashemites from Saudi Arabia. Either Jordan and the PA or both have derivations of flags of hijaz, again from Saudi.

Expand full comment
barnabus's avatar

till the end - that is before 1945 - the problem was not so much the Arab muslims, but the Muslims of the Indian Empire. The British needed them to keep India under their thumb and the Indian Muslims replied with extraterritorial requests... Moreover, since Indian Congress felt it needed this demographic on their side, they also joined on these demands.

Anyway, now NYers rub their eyes and see astonished that their new mayor will be Z Mamdani.

Expand full comment
Alan, aka DudeInMinnetonka's avatar

shitler had 600,000 plus Islamics from the Balkans to the Middle East, my 20 year old lived in Brooklyn the last year and encountered zero Street protests as she relished her friends in the city. But agreed the consequences are unfathomable yet already forecast...escape from New York, the Charlton Heston Soylent Green films come to mind or warriors, looking back the Bronx was Gaza like 40 years ago 🤷

Expand full comment
barnabus's avatar

Imagine - Columbia, NYU and CUNY all hiding terror tunnels under their medical builldings lol

Expand full comment
Alan, aka DudeInMinnetonka's avatar

The Iranians have joined the Lebanese who had joined the Arabs in crying out the Jew hit me back

The Naaahqbaaa is the lamentable storyline for the phony phallustinians where they whine and moan forever more about their seven armies losing to the arms embargoed emerging state of Israel with one rifle for every three soldiers and an army consisting of Holocaust survivors and teenagers.

What victims they are to name their founding event after the failure of their people to murder the Jews as they had promised and to soak the land of Palestine with the blood of the Jews.

The letter p in Islam stands for peace and is significant in the word Palestinian for its absence in the Arabic language which originates in Arabia yet there are 24 Arab countries 🤔 spewing that Israel is a colonial entity 🤣

Phuck phony phallustinians

Qataristinians has a punitive bitch slap aspect to it, they'll make up a cohesive Qatari cult to dwell on that island and get to taste Islam amongst their own

Expand full comment
Jacob Donald's avatar

Every single bomb that lands on any Iranian is creating 20 insurgents. This is not our fight. It is Israel’s.

Expand full comment
barnabus's avatar

Never works like that. Dresden 1945 was considered harsh, but after Dresden every German city wanted to surrender if the Western allies were in sight.

Expand full comment
Usually Wash's avatar

Japan is an even better example.

Expand full comment
m droy's avatar

???? they killed 100k people in Tokyo in one night and went on andon and on fire bombing wooden housing. Didn't work at all. First nuke didn't work.

What really worked was the prospect of Soviets getting to Japan first, and having communist revenge for Nangking and all the other atrocities.

Expand full comment
Yadidya (YDYDY)'s avatar

Sure, but the fact that they didn't know how many more nukes we had (hint: we had no more nukes but, lacking whatsapp, managed to keep that secret) also helped.

Expand full comment
m droy's avatar

So US used everything it had and had to wait.

Aug 6th and 9th the bombs,

Aug 8th Russia declares war on Japan and mobilises Aug 9th.

Aug 15th Hirohito's surrender broadcast.

He didn't rush the decision.

Expand full comment
Usually Wash's avatar

Bombing Iran's nuclear sites, killing zero civilians, will create insurgents?

Expand full comment
Bill Price's avatar

This better be the end of it. If Netanyahu can freely drag us into wars then who runs this country?

Expand full comment
JasonT's avatar

He would still be better than President Autopen.

Expand full comment
Erik's avatar

Despite all the assumptions on twitter, I see no indications that this means the US will have a war with, (and in) Iran. Trump views this as a way to solve the near term problem of a nuclear Iran and the comma before "so now are you ready to negotiate?"

I've seen several online experts say that Israel doesn't have the ability to invade and capture Iran. They would love it if this recent action helped the people overthrow the government, but that's about the end of it.

I'll also dare predict that the Iranian response to the US will be limited to some kind of face saving blustering nothing. The top people in Iran do not want to give the US an excuse.

Expand full comment
Erik's avatar

Of course, this could also be wishful thinking on my part.

Expand full comment
Stephan Notter's avatar

Hopefully just a one and done.

Expand full comment
Steve Campbell's avatar

Everything I have seen indicates that the B-2’s arrived at an announced time, after warning to clear the area and dropped the loads of 30,000 lb bunker busters into the Nuclear development facilities. They were out of Iranian airspace and headed home before the Iranians could say , “Death to America.”

Expand full comment
Jerome's avatar

I'm sure Israel would not have made this decision if it didn't serve their interests.

Expand full comment
ArthurinCali's avatar

I didn't vote for more sand wars on behalf of other regional players.

Expand full comment
Rex Little's avatar

I voted for Trump this time (breaking a string of 13 votes for the Libertarian candidate for President) in the belief that he was the most likely person to avoid this sort of thing. Oops!

Expand full comment
Chicago Phil's avatar

Bush Jr ran as a peace candidate too.

Expand full comment
Bezoar's avatar

Woodrow Wilson too…🙄😬

Expand full comment
Eugine Nier's avatar

Yes, funny how "peace candidates" inevitable end up in wars.

Almost as if "avoiding wars" doesn't actually work.

Expand full comment
Erik's avatar

To be fair, we are not at war yet. The Trump part of the wikipedia page on US military actions is still pretty skinny compared to any president since Carter.

Expand full comment
Magnus Vidstige's avatar

Almost as if the military industrial complex and the political establishment simply won't allow it to happen. Both Wilson and Bush could have kept out with no negative consequences for Americans.

Expand full comment
Franco Booth's avatar

Bad idea. Air power alone hasn’t conquered a people. North Vietnam and even Iraqis who were not exactly the Red Army.

Bibi is trying to get his big Goy brother to do the dying in the streets of Tehran.

Remember the wise words of Pat Buchanan: “ Iraq was a bad idea gone wrong…”

Expand full comment
barnabus's avatar

That was because US tried Nation building. Like in Afganistan too. Without Nation building, it would have been OK.

Expand full comment
Usually Wash's avatar

Iran is much higher IQ than Iraq and Afghanistan. It has more top scientists. They are not the same at all. It's important to understand the HBD facts. Steve Sailer predicted that Iraq would be a disaster because of their cousin marriage.

Expand full comment
barnabus's avatar

In terms of state capacity, Iran or Turkey perform better than ANY given Arab-speaking state. And yes, historically, Iran was a great civilization. However, Velayat al faqih is not good for Iran, so I would rate them worse than Soviet Russia after the 1936-38 purges.

Expand full comment
Usually Wash's avatar

To be clear I’m not advocating spending 20 years in Iran. Bomb the nuclear sites and get out, and let Israel handle the rest.

Expand full comment
barnabus's avatar

Same view *smile*

Expand full comment
wargamer's avatar

Most Iranians still regard a mass murdering child rapist as the greatest person in history which seems worrisome.

Expand full comment
Usually Wash's avatar

I think they are at least as secular as Turks.

Expand full comment
Erik's avatar

I don't think Trump intended this to conquer Iran. I take him at his word. He wanted to set their nukes program back and incentivize them to negotiate.

Expand full comment
Franco Booth's avatar

Fair point and let’s hope 47 doesn’t get roped into any nation building schemes.

Expand full comment
Erik's avatar

Iran is as nation built as it's going to get. I'd be more concerned about boots on the ground to "help ease the transition to democracy".

Expand full comment
Kent Clizbe's avatar

Horrible idea.

Beginning of another never-ending war for that hostile foreign power.

Trump is owned by AIPAC and Miriam Adelson.

None of our business.

Expand full comment
Usually Wash's avatar

Nah, the Iranian regime will collapse.

Expand full comment
Kent Clizbe's avatar

And then....?

Daisies and clover sprout and everyone embraces their role as shabbas goys and lives happily ever after?

Ain't gonna happen.

Again--horrible deed. Opening another sorry chapter.

Expand full comment
Usually Wash's avatar

Not a never-ending war for the US. Whatever comes after this current Iranian regime is gonna be better. I suspect you'll get something that is more like Turkey.

American children's hospitals getting attacked is not our business? Iran is the #3 source of anti-US cyberattacks after China and Russia.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/iranian-backed-hackers-targeted-boston-childrens-hospital-fbi-chief-says-2022-06-01/

Expand full comment
Kent Clizbe's avatar

"American children's hospitals getting attacked is not our business?"

WW3 began because of an online hack more than 3 years ago?

Insane and delusional.

Expand full comment
Usually Wash's avatar

World War III has not begun. What are you talking about?

I was illustrating that Iran poses a real threat to the US and it is in our interest for the "Death to America" regime to be out.

You ask why Iran is our business, I gave an example of one awful thing Iran did. Not the only thing by any means. And then after I address you point you say oh, so that justifies World War III? Huh? What are you talking about? World War III is not going to start over Iran. China and Russia aren't doing jack shit to defend the Iranian regime.

Expand full comment
Kent Clizbe's avatar

We just bombed--an act of war--a sovereign nation that has not attacked us.

That act is a million times more serious than other acts that have sparked recent global conflagrations. Archduke Ferdinand?

Our unprovoked attack on Iran is quite similar to Japan's unprovoked attack on Pearl Harbor.

Again, a standard online hack more than 3 years ago justifies Pearl Harbor?

Delusional.

Expand full comment
Erik's avatar

I would love this. I would be very happy for the Iranians. I can't get a bead on how realistic this is. There is so much propaganda. We hear from Iranians that hate the regime because they are our kinda people. Europeans are mystified by Trump winning the election because every American they know, every American news show they watch, says Trump is terrible.

One thing that does encourage me is that this many decades after the revolution, true fanatics are not in charge. The top people in Iran are hierarchy climbers and they love nothing more than themselves. If they had a place to retreat to with their fortunes intact, it wouldn't take much more pressure for them to do it...OTOH, if most of the people stand behind them...

Expand full comment
Matt Moneymaker's avatar

Necessary.

Expand full comment
Chicago Phil's avatar

He should be impeached and removed from office. I voted for him.

Expand full comment
David Frankenbach's avatar

IDK what the best solution might be, but I do know that Iran can not be allowed to have nuclear weapons. They have already demonstrated the ability for a ship launched ICBM to detonate a conventional warhead in the stratosphere. That is exactly the capability required to create an EMP that would bring down the grid and lead to millions of deaths on whatever continent they choose to attack. IMO, anyone who thinks they will not do that is delusional.

Expand full comment
Jerome's avatar

Doesn't that also mean that Pakistan, India and North Korea also "can not be allowed to have nuclear weapons"? Oh, wait. They don't threaten Israel. Never mind.

Expand full comment
David Frankenbach's avatar

IMO the other countries you mention don't exhibit the same degree of lunacy as the Iranian leadership. When was the last time the leaders of any of those countries publicly stated they wanted to "death to America?"

Expand full comment
Samson's avatar

NK mocked up a video of the US being nuked and played it on their state news channel, IIRC.

Expand full comment
Jerome's avatar

Right. But they didn't threaten Israel, so ...

Expand full comment
David Frankenbach's avatar

Before or after Trump's visit during his 1st term?

Expand full comment
barnabus's avatar

NorthK is a nothingburger. The country to watch closely is Pakistan. They are constantly launching terror attacks on India.

Expand full comment
MamaBear's avatar

Lunacy by chanting Death to America? That doesn’t meet the definition of lunacy. Stupidity sure.

Expand full comment
Erik's avatar

I get it. You don't like Israel. Thing is, threatening to destroy another (I'll go with "Sovereign Nation!" since that appears to be an official part of the talking points script on this situation) sovereign nation, that has done nothing to you, and repeatedly and consistently taking steps to destroy that "sovereign nation!" over a period of decades, well, that does show a difference. That does indicate what you can be trusted with.

India and Pakistan may fight over Kashmir, but if either side gave up on it, the other side would not kill or expel all the current residents.

North Korea shouldn't have been allowed a nuke either but if we leave them alone, do they want to destroy South Korea?

Expand full comment
Yadidya (YDYDY)'s avatar

No individual or small group of individuals should have access to the ability to murder millions or the entire planet.

As for North Korea, I was young but still screaming at my tv for Bill Clinton to stop them.

He didn't. And yes, that's a big problem.

None of which means that I support any part of the current conflict(s).

https://ydydy.substack.com/p/dance-rabbi-dance

https://ydydy.substack.com/p/the-world-without-enslavement

Expand full comment