I'm fairly certain this would be like an atheist trying to convince a religious person there's no such thing as a soul. The belief that all wars are caused by Jews goes back a long way and has always been based on faith and stupid.
Fair enough, I totally agree that not all wars are started by Jewish people. That’s obvious, but I interpreted Gordo to being a little facetious, but maybe he wasn’t. I do however think that this particular war has been pushed very very hard by the Likud party and its proponents in the US govt.
I agree that if this war is successful it might well benefit our current best ally Israel. To me that's a feature, not a bug. Success might look different to us and the Israelis. I have seen convincing (ish) arguments that this is about China's ability to invade Taiwan (which a lot of people on the internet seem to think they have to do within a few years or lose the ability forever...therefore they will). I have also seen convincing arguments that this is why Trump took Maduro.
Although I am generally for the US slowly winding down its roll as global cop, in the case of Iran, that situation is our fault. I find the idea of cleaning up our mess appealing. I also think it's a bad idea to abandon allies just because we no longer need them.
There was a recent US poll showing that support for Israel has plummeted over the last 25 years, especially among the young. This may not be the greatest move as far as Americans are concerned.
Imagine Russia had killed 100 Ukrainian schoolgirls. That would be the headlines for the next two months.
But this is pretty much in line with previous US actions in the Middle East. Whatever happened to "no more wars" Trump ?
Rejection of capitalism would in itself be a good thing. I surmise that the favored alternative by most who reject it would not altogether be an improvement, however.
As far as I understand, capitalism is private means of production. You are against that? You mean the state/society/maximo leader should decide what exactly to produce at each and every micro level?
I am not against private means of production, but capitalism is not reducible to that. Capitalism or free market ideology includes the idea that individuals ought to be free to pursue whatever economic pursuits they might have, and that the market exists to coordinate consumer preferences in the most efficient manner possible. A thing’s ‘value’ is determined by consumers’ subjective preferences, ideally without any state or institutional pressure distorting things.
But such an economic vision where the economic sphere is autonomous and independent from non-economic concerns that a society might have will undermine the health of society: capitalism prefers that individuals are fungible and so there is an incentive to erase cultural particularities, to enable increased mobility of labor, to facilitate ease of alienation of property, to encourage women to enter the workforce en masse, etc, all for the sake of wealth creation. This facilitates the erasure of culture, undermines the family and marriage, and increases the atomization of society.
Rather, the economic sphere ought to be subordinate to the common good, where economic policy ought to serve the nation, the community, and the family, rather than being regarded merely as an efficient means of coordinating individual consumer preferences. This entails that there are circumstances where the state ought to restrict economic activity that might run afoul of free market principles for the sake of the common good. It does not entail socialism or micro-managing the economy at every level.
If I understand you correctly, you are making a case for common good capitalism (see eg Oren Cass' commonplace substack) rather than an ordoliberal capitalism?
Has the US public ever actually supported Israel's wars much since the invasion of Lebanon in the 70s/80s? The high point for Israel in the US was the Exodus miniseries. Lebanon changed all that. I always get the impression that most people don't really, but like immigration public opinion doesn't matter on terms of neocon wars.
You get the crazy evangelicals (And the cultural evangelicals and post-evans) and Jews (Like the 6 year old Palestinian boy who was stabbed to death by a gentile with a Polish name who was their landlord who had been watching too much Fox News it seems. That hate crime was totally omitted by the media when it seems like the most serious one by a white gentile in decades and decades.) but I never detected much support outside that for Israel's wars or settlers or mistreatment of Gaza. Most Americans have not been wagon-circling for Israel since the 70s. Seems like a myth that this is new, just even more pronounced among younger people.
Brian is an America Second guy. We are making Israel stronger than the US, they’ve already penetrated our govt (see the numerous high level officials with dual citizenship). And now they will be the middle east hegemon. Real good for the Yankees, right?
And so are you. We just created an Israeli super power that America has no influence over. So do you want America to be stronger than Israel, or Israel stronger than America? We all know which you prefer, whether you recognize it or not.
It looks like it was a missile misfire that wouldn’t have been fired if we weren’t attacking them. We bear the responsibility. You sound like a gay boomer with your fellow traveler nonsense. If this is over in the timeline they say, good. I’m no irgc fanboy. But we are mostly
responsible for that disaster and when some bad actor returns the favor. Just remember to stfu. It’s the cost of war!
Except for Hamas or Hezbollah (or Iran), no-one does it on purpose. Russians don't do it on purpose, Israelis don't do it on purpose, and US Air Force also doesn't do it on purpose.
Nope. If Israelis did it on purpose, the ratio of killed combatants to civilians would be 100:1. Instead it is approx 1:1. Which is exactly what you's expect when you have very good intel on combatants hiding in civilan neigborhoods. That is hiding which itself is breaking the lawx of war.
I understand what you mean to say, but remember the firebombing raids on Dresden and Tokyo and the nuclear bombing of two Japanese cities, among other atrocities in the terror bombing raids of WW2. In the last two-three years, Israeli policy in Gaza has been to destroy elementary schools, water treatment plants, hospitals, jails, restaurants -- all buildings and whoever was in them -- in vast areas of Gaza.
Nope. Israelis only touch schools, hospitals etc if these are staging grounds of attacks. Making schools, hospitals etc a staging ground of attacks is itself a war crime - because the military party doing that is responsible for the civilans that would be killed in a response by the adversary.
Associated Press works for Hamas. Just like BBC. They are the same news agencies that root for undocumented migrants and against ICE in the US. Or for BLM's mostly peaceful protests in 2020, lol. Or have you heard about BBC reporting on grooming gangs in the UK?
Happen to catch Piers Morgan the other night? An IDF rep admitted that IDF HQ is bunkered under a residential area in Tel Aviv, as has been widely reported by western media. A war crime as you just pointed out. Please don’t take my word for it, go watch for yourself. I’m legitimately curious as to your response.
You believe the news? You take everything Trump says at face value? Of course he’s planning. By that I don’t mean he’s personally designing a successor regime for Iran, just that he’s pushing things in a certain direction, and quite intentionally.
The plan is no boots on the ground and the Iranians have to take this opportunity to "take back their country" . if they do not do that, then the plan is to come back and do this again whenever it looks like they are getting back up to speed with the nukes.
If the Venezuela adventure is any indication, Iran's government structures will remain as is but will be opened to US business interests. We'll see if that is sustainable.
The only logical response to Israeli nukes is for their neighbors to get nukes too. That seems to have been the motivation for Fuchs, Oppenheimer, Hall, the Rosenbergs, etc. to supply information on the A Bomb to the Soviets.
Yeah exactly my point. All this analysis on potential outcomes, motivations, tactics, goals, etc but no credibly take on what Iranians thought about last years strikes, forget about on the ground real time sentiment.
That argues against regime change being the outcome. I can still see it making the next group of Mullahs rethink overt financing of terrorism and nukes. They might get placid for a while.
I recall Sailer (I think it was Sailer) writing about this a long time ago: the western media was all shocked at the outcome of the Iranian election when Ahmadinejad was re-elected president and concluded that it must have been rigged. After all, everyone they talked to from Iran had been anti-Ahmadinejad. But it turned out all the Persians they talked to were members of the educated westernized class, so they had received a very biased perspective.
That and the fact that although they have a "democratic election" the Mullahs have approval over the candidates. No telling (well I have no way of telling) what would happen in an election in which anyone could run. It is encouraging that Iran at least has a history of democracy (which we and to a lesser extent the British destroyed...over oil)
Anyone who watches a lot of YouTube should be perfectly humbled in his ability to make predictions--especially about the future. The algorithm feeds me a constant stream of what it assumes I want hear then, occasionally I trip something in the algorithm and it feeds me other people confidently explaining why the opposite outcome is inevitable>
I spent months being told the Russians would win any day now then suddenly I learned that the Ukrainians were actually kicking the Russian asses all along. Now a few years later it's still going on.
Until it does. See Russian satellites, and Russia itself. Though what comes next requires more of a Trump diplomacy than a Kissinger diplomacy, as we have learned.
I'm more intrigued by the response from the Democrats. The hysterics are a bit too over the top and shows how this is just political peacocking from Democrats trying to distract from their unwillingness to put forth a resolution against Iran action, but now perform theatrics for effect after the fact. That is why every Democrat is clamoring to get in a social media video clip or MSM soundbite to show their displeasure.
The last thing they ever were going to do would was to have a vote and get it put down on record in Congress against attacking Iran. That creates a permanent mark. That is ready-made midterm material if this works out perfectly (or close enough) for Trump & Co. That would upset major donors of the party who are happy to see a foe in the region taken down that helps their financial interests. It also somewhat shields them from accusations of being unpatriotic.
Not officially being against Trump's actions regarding Iran allows the "anti-war" liberal democrats to keep their false reputations with their base. A true Uniparty system at work.
And that is something we should be able to discuss without Eric dissolving into name-calling. We all know the anti-semites here. Here, they're just sturm and drang and are ignored.
Bingo - none of the above. In any cost benefit analysis, we would be way ahead if we never spent a dime fighting in the middle east, or giving the hundreds of billions to "our greatest ally". 🤢
1. I support the strikes but there are costs to not even pretending to debate this among the people’s representatives.
2. Almost no one would dare, but it’s not impossible that someone dares to kill high-ranking American officials in America.
There are 538 Senators and Representatives who the second they leave Capitol Hill are very much vulnerable to a motivated hostile state to attack.
This is the risk of normalizing assassinations. It can blowback on our own elites directly.
3. I’m stunned at how little in the discourse Oct 7 has been featured. Maybe our elites want to downplay the fact that Israel is a major player in the American decision to strike Iran and the world has gone made with anti-Jew anti-Israel sentiment *after* Israel was victimized on Oct 7.
Assassinations being unthinkable was the case for a fairly brief period after congress outlawed it in the 1970s. I think we decided that as long as you do it with a drone it doesn't count or something. IANAL.
I find myself leaning towards the idea that world leaders, even our own, should feel like they are at risk, just like average people are in places like Ukraine where world leaders, including our own, deliberately put them at risk.
The kicker in that example is that Putin is quite frankly a dead man if he stops putting Russian soldiers' lives at risk. Neither Zelensky, who can go into exile probably in France, nor any Western backer of his regime, is at substantial risk however the Ukraine conflict pans out and regardless of whether they continue to fight or give it up.
Unlike most groups in the Middle East, except the Israelis and the Lebanese Christians and maybe a few others, the Iranians have semi-decent IQ scores, so I'm cautiously hopeful.
They also have a massive, rich, secular, well-educated diaspora which is likely to help with any reconstruction efforts if the Islamic Republic collapses. Iran suffers from the worst brain drain in the world, but the people who left are still patriotic Persians.
Candidate Trump campaigned on no new wars and especially in the Middle East. We voted for no new wars. Americans are suffering, can't afford: rent, groceries, mortgages, can't get jobs, can't make a decent living, paying outrageous taxes. Our tax money should not be using our blood and treasure for Israel. Let Israel fight their own wars. This is NOT America first. This is NOT what his supporters voted for. This is what Charlie Kirk was talking about in the months leading up to his assassination. He kept saying: No war with Iran.
I’m American First and the whole world is celebrating and thanking Trump right now. I was also very much against the Iraq war. Since 1979 the Iranian regime has been the avowed enemy of the US, the largest exporter of terrorism in the world. They were working on building intercontinental ballistic missiles. Trump saw an opportunity and took it. We have not had president with that much fortitude in my long lifetime. This one act has the potential to project a peace through your lifetime and your children’s lifetime.
2. More importantly, what does on the ground Iranians think? Because that’s who matters as they will need to run their country if the regime collapses. Who will govern?
Yeah sure. I have no doubt some are but how many? That and are they willing to fight and die to overthrow the regime? These are the most impotent questions.
I think few Westerners have detailed knowledge about the political beliefs of 90M Iranians. Looking at rallies in support of Trump in the U.S. and elsewhere tells you jack about Iran itself.
This! I've been supporting Trump in the face of family and friends with TDS, but I'm done. DOGE didn't expose enough waste and fraud, and ICE hasn't deported enough illegals, to make up for a new war.
You have no concept of how little most presidents get done. Since you don’t have a sense of history, you have no patience, but like it or not, Trump is one of the most consequential presidents ever. And you’re whining about him not getting enough done? Get a clue.
Yes, Trump is getting a lot of stuff done. The ratio of good to counterproductive is not where I'd like it to be, but there's still a lot of good. The problem is that unlike LBJ, he's not doing the hard work in Congress of getting it cemented into law. So, just like his first term, there's very little that won't be immediately reversed the minute the political winds change. I'm looking for something better than that.
> Yes, Trump is getting a lot of stuff done. The ratio of good to counterproductive is not where I'd like it to be, but there's still a lot of good. The problem is that unlike LBJ, he's not doing the hard work in Congress of getting it cemented into law. So, just like his first term, there's very little that won't be immediately reversed the minute the political winds change. I'm looking for something better than that. <
Great--*great*--comment, ReadingProblem.
This is one of the most annoying things about Trump. He still thinks he's real estate developer and all he has to sign some directive and tell his subordinates "go do X".
But the US is not the Trump Organization. It operates according to a bunch of laws. And their will shortly be a new CEO--who may well be hostile to Trump's ideas. The way you make much more enduring change is to actually change the laws.
Trump's had a year with a Republican congress and we still have--for example--TPS, the diversity lottery, "refugee" quotas, a huge H-1B quota, birth tourism, interfering immigration judges and a massive legal immigration quota. Zero legal progress.
"Civil Rights", AA, DIE--same thing. Where's the new law? I'd prefer the wrecking ball and return to freedom of association--everyone is free to discriminate as they wish. But baring that an explicit statement that it is illegal to discriminate against whites men, heterosexuals--no AA, no DEI. Legalize any hiring criteria a company likes--no disparate impact. Send the HR ladies packing.
Tariff--same thing. I'd rather see capital controls--export credits required for import payments--to force a trade balance. But at least Trump is trying to do something with tariffs. But tariffs are a clear Article 1--legislative--power. Congress has to explicitly give Trump the power to set them and negotiate with foreign nations. Nothing done.
Minoritarianism, immigration, feminization, trade, affordable family formation/fertility ... nothing substantive in law.
All the good stuff Trump's done can we whisked away in an afternoon by the next Parasite Party president.
I have such a concept. I worked in the Senate and the Reagan White House. And I can tell you that the main reason nothing gets done is that Republican presidents allow donors to dictate to them, and allow the enemies of their supposed agendas into positions of power in their administrations. In Reagan's second term they were too numerous to name. As for Trump, he hired Suzy Wiles, for heaven's sake! Former Pfizer lackey and Deep State hack. And Pam Bondi, another Deep Stater who helped quash the first Epstein prosecution! Plus he sends clowns with no diplomatic experience, including his son-in-law (whom we were assured we were safe from after he helped trash Trump's first term), to negotiate with the Russians!
I'm sorry, but we've been hornswoggled again by a lying clown. It's time to wake up.
It's just the same old crap in a different bag. As far as I'm concerned, whatever good Trump did, he just wiped out. Apparently America First means Israel and the neocons first. He lied to us, and I fell for it. Well, no more.
As for Vance, I don't see how he can be trusted either. He talked a good game for a while. But then, they all do.
I’m American First and the whole world is celebrating and thanking Trump right now. I was also very much against the Iraq war. Since 1979 the Iranian regime has been the avowed enemy of the US, the largest exporter of terrorism in the world. They were working on building intercontinental ballistic missiles. Trump saw an opportunity and took it. We have not had president with that much fortitude in my long lifetime. This one act has the potential to project a peace through your lifetime and your children’s lifetime.
There is no evidence that Iran was building ICBM's. That false allegation that Iran might someday be a threat to the USA was made to cover up the fact that USA war against Iran is strictly in service to Jewish nationalism.
Your point was that Iran has a nuclear program and a missile program. I pointed out that Israel does as well. Built with fissionable material stolen from the USG. Why do you have a problem with Irans nuke program, but not with Israel’s?
It's hardly Israel alone that wants the Iranian regime ended. Assuming all muslims are pals is incorrect. Our long time buddies the Saudis absolutely are behind this too. And if you think only the Israelis don't want the current regime in Iran to have nukes, you are simply incorrect. If the best/only argument against something is that the Israelis are for it (or let's be honest, what people mean is the jews are for it) then it's probably a good idea.
The Saudis are Sunni and see Iran as a threat and rival. They want true U.S. to so their bidding without sacrificing anything themselves. Another ME manipulator. Saudi Arabia sucks.
I think you are purposely misunderstanding my point. I am merely responding to the antisemitic canard that all military action in the Middle East is only because Israel wants it. You will see at least one other person in this discussion who goes further and assumes that all wars everywhere are ultimately because of Israel. Earlier antisemites would have had the balls (like a drunken Mel Gibson...still love ya, Mel) to just say Jews are responsible for all wars everywhere at all times.
I assume you are one of the people who has never said the latter, possibly never even heard the latter (why would you). I only mention it to explain why it's tiresome and why I might appear to be overreacting to a kind of valid point.
Americans elected Trump commander in chief. He was negotiating with Iran and decided they needed some incentivizing. You can be against that policy but I am going to call you on it if your claim is that this is just Trump bending to the will of foreigners. The US (and to a lesser extent the UK) are 100% responsible for creating the situation in which Iran is a theocratic autocracy that is both the main sponsor of anti-western terrorism and actively seeking nuclear weapons. I understand that many people in this comments section would prefer a world in which the US is not in charge of global peace but currently we are and the majority of Americans (last I checked) implicitly want that.
Americans elected Trump as Executive, who is supposed to get authorization from the Legislature before launching a war, not just as a Constitutional nicety, but to ensure that it is a project the public actually supports. Polls show most Americans don't support this. Trump undoubtedly knows this.
So why would a formerly popular Executive defy the will of his constituency? One answer is that his real constituency isn't those who elected him.
In general, I think most presidents get snowed by bureaucrats who are very good at playing Very Serious People and giving the President Goldilocks options designed to make sure they pick the "just right" one.
And, the military industrial complex is no exception and doubtless also deployed the stick "mushroom cloud in Manhattan" and carrot "peace in the Middle East". Neither is remotely likely, and we really don't have any national interest in messing around there.
That said, if someone gave me the chance to kill the Ayatollah, it would be hard to resist.
Unlike Bush Jr., Trump strikes me as a realist and pragmatist so I don’t see the US being bogged down, especially if the Shah’s kid can galvanize the country.
Their parents overthrew the shah. You think the next generation has the courage and bravery to overthrow the current regime? The Shahs son or grandson or whoever will now be installed as ruler? Sounds petty fantastical to me.
Yes, a bunch of dumb college radicals thoughtousting the Shah hand-in-hand with the Mullahs would "liberate" them. They paid a terrible price and don't think that way anymore.
I'll probably be in the minority in this comment section but I'm glad Trump had the stones to do this. The Iranians have been responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths around the world for the last almost 50 years. I have friends who were blown up and killed or wounded by Iranian EFPs. The Iranians are directly responsible for thousands of American's deaths so it's about time somebody made them pay for it. Every American government till now has cowered to Iranian bluster and threats. Obama tried to suck up to them and pay them off, hoping they'd like us. Instead, they used Obama's billions to spread more death around the world and they still chanted "Death to America." Now it's up to the Iranian people to rise up and take control. This action is giving them their chance to do it.
They’re responsible for a number of American deaths, sure, but in the Middle East. We put ourselves there on another similar crusade (depose bad guy, populace free). Who will be blowing up our soldiers this time around, inciting the next round of vengeance for “targeting Americans” that we put there? Never ends.
Yeah we put ourselves there (meaning the Persian Gulf) in the 1960s when we replaced the Brits (a nice way of saying kicked them out) as the dominant power. This is all explained in J.B. Kelly’s ARABIA, THE GULF, AND THE WEST.
The "thousands" of Americans' deaths means US servicemen in a warzone?
And the "directly responsible for" means Iran provided weapons to Shia militias, some of which weapons were used against Americans?
I'm asking because if so, Russia has a great brief to bomb the US, which provided far more weapons to anti-Russian forces for the specific purpose of killing Russians, both military and civilian.
The US also provided Taiwan $billions of weapons for use against China. If China decides to reincorporate Taiwan and some Chinese get killed by US weapons in the ensuing events, will China have a clear case to bomb the US?
People don't realize all the pies Iran has (had) their fingers in: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Gaza, Yemen, and so on. After the Oct 7 festivities, Israel degraded but did not root out Iranian mischief-making in the region. And, as always, vermin left unexterminated tend to re-infest the area. Same with the nuke development; it would've become an annual chore to bunker-bust the previous year or two's work on the project. Then, all you'd need would be a Biden or Harris or Mayor Pete and four years' clear sailing, and a whole new set of REAL problems would pertain in the region.
With the mullahs deposed, a fully Westernized and US-friendly Shah will be running a rapidly modernizing constitutional monarchy rejoined to the West. The icing on the cake is KSA and Israel signing the Abraham accords and bringing the remaining shards of regional instability under control. With Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon on the road to recovery, the region can finally develop away from its oil wealth and use the talents of its smart and enterprising citizens (and maybe even an Islam modernized for contemporary times) to good effect.
With a bit of luck and some (newly) enlightened leadership both in the region and in a (drastically) reformed UN and EU, the Middle East could be on the verge of a Renaissance unseen in the world for going on 500 years. One can hope.
Isn't it pretty to think so? My fingers are crossed. I feel like I don't have an understanding of what the average Persian still in Iran thinks and what they are likely to do. I can see some element of the military taking over, the republican guard. Possibly someone with better survival instincts will at least stop funding terrorism until the US elects its next democrat. Maybe?
I wouldn't wish becoming fully Westernized upon my worst enemy, that's the kiss of death for any nation that cares about preserving its culture and traditions and its identity as a people. Pig morality, androgyny, deracination, atomization, and blasphemy are the fruits of joining the West.
Best outcome: regime change to a moderate government, Iran drops bid for nuclear weapons and long-range missiles, big drop in support to terrorism via Iranian proxies, Russian war hurt by loss of some drones provided by Iran, China loses influence in Middle East.
Worst outcome: regime survives and continues weapons and terrorism policies. China sees opportunity to move on Taiwan.
The entire bullpen is likely on the Israeli to-do list as well.
They already killed the head of the state. This is a Rubicon that cannot be easily un-crossed, and while they are at it, they can kill every successor as well, until they either get what they want or their lack of intelligence data stops them.
And looking at the recent developments, they don't seem to be suffering from a lack of intelligence data.
President Trump has said all along that he wants to end wars, and although he's not perfect at it, he's been generally successful. It seems that he views what the ayatollahs have been doing as waging a guerilla/terrorist war against Israel, the U.S. and any other country they've perceived as being in the Israel/U.S. camp for decades now. So he regards, and I agree, that attacking Iran isn't STARTING a new war but rather is the only possible way to END that long lasting war.
Israel war, but aren’t they all?
No. and absolutely no.
Care to elaborate? Why is Gordo wrong here?
I'm fairly certain this would be like an atheist trying to convince a religious person there's no such thing as a soul. The belief that all wars are caused by Jews goes back a long way and has always been based on faith and stupid.
Fair enough, I totally agree that not all wars are started by Jewish people. That’s obvious, but I interpreted Gordo to being a little facetious, but maybe he wasn’t. I do however think that this particular war has been pushed very very hard by the Likud party and its proponents in the US govt.
I agree that if this war is successful it might well benefit our current best ally Israel. To me that's a feature, not a bug. Success might look different to us and the Israelis. I have seen convincing (ish) arguments that this is about China's ability to invade Taiwan (which a lot of people on the internet seem to think they have to do within a few years or lose the ability forever...therefore they will). I have also seen convincing arguments that this is why Trump took Maduro.
Although I am generally for the US slowly winding down its roll as global cop, in the case of Iran, that situation is our fault. I find the idea of cleaning up our mess appealing. I also think it's a bad idea to abandon allies just because we no longer need them.
There was a recent US poll showing that support for Israel has plummeted over the last 25 years, especially among the young. This may not be the greatest move as far as Americans are concerned.
Imagine Russia had killed 100 Ukrainian schoolgirls. That would be the headlines for the next two months.
But this is pretty much in line with previous US actions in the Middle East. Whatever happened to "no more wars" Trump ?
Next month - "why do they hate us?"
In any war, schoolgirls get killed too. With Russia in Ukraine no-one cares, really.
Recent US polling shows that support for Capitalism has plummeted over the last 25 years, especially among the young.
The young are idiots. Always have been.
Rejection of capitalism would in itself be a good thing. I surmise that the favored alternative by most who reject it would not altogether be an improvement, however.
As far as I understand, capitalism is private means of production. You are against that? You mean the state/society/maximo leader should decide what exactly to produce at each and every micro level?
This is a false dilemma.
I am not against private means of production, but capitalism is not reducible to that. Capitalism or free market ideology includes the idea that individuals ought to be free to pursue whatever economic pursuits they might have, and that the market exists to coordinate consumer preferences in the most efficient manner possible. A thing’s ‘value’ is determined by consumers’ subjective preferences, ideally without any state or institutional pressure distorting things.
But such an economic vision where the economic sphere is autonomous and independent from non-economic concerns that a society might have will undermine the health of society: capitalism prefers that individuals are fungible and so there is an incentive to erase cultural particularities, to enable increased mobility of labor, to facilitate ease of alienation of property, to encourage women to enter the workforce en masse, etc, all for the sake of wealth creation. This facilitates the erasure of culture, undermines the family and marriage, and increases the atomization of society.
Rather, the economic sphere ought to be subordinate to the common good, where economic policy ought to serve the nation, the community, and the family, rather than being regarded merely as an efficient means of coordinating individual consumer preferences. This entails that there are circumstances where the state ought to restrict economic activity that might run afoul of free market principles for the sake of the common good. It does not entail socialism or micro-managing the economy at every level.
If I understand you correctly, you are making a case for common good capitalism (see eg Oren Cass' commonplace substack) rather than an ordoliberal capitalism?
To paraphrase the old comedy sketch, capitalism been berry, berry good to me.
You, too.
Has the US public ever actually supported Israel's wars much since the invasion of Lebanon in the 70s/80s? The high point for Israel in the US was the Exodus miniseries. Lebanon changed all that. I always get the impression that most people don't really, but like immigration public opinion doesn't matter on terms of neocon wars.
You get the crazy evangelicals (And the cultural evangelicals and post-evans) and Jews (Like the 6 year old Palestinian boy who was stabbed to death by a gentile with a Polish name who was their landlord who had been watching too much Fox News it seems. That hate crime was totally omitted by the media when it seems like the most serious one by a white gentile in decades and decades.) but I never detected much support outside that for Israel's wars or settlers or mistreatment of Gaza. Most Americans have not been wagon-circling for Israel since the 70s. Seems like a myth that this is new, just even more pronounced among younger people.
No, only 90%. In this case, read ARABIA, THE GULF, AND THE WEST, by J.B. Kelly. I dare you Gord. You can do it.
You know what’s up.
No, a Boston Archbishop got us into Vietnam. Credit where due!
There is something to that. But the vast majority of influential Catholic sects, especially the creepy Jesuits, opposed the war.
Trump is fixing the world one country at a time, best President ever!
Brian is an America Second guy. We are making Israel stronger than the US, they’ve already penetrated our govt (see the numerous high level officials with dual citizenship). And now they will be the middle east hegemon. Real good for the Yankees, right?
I think bombing schools full of little girls is bad.
Since the Ayahollah crowd did it you are making yourself a fellow traveler. Your parents must be very proud of you, their little Muzsymp.
So I did have you figured out. My dad was a Bronze star winner. You are very predictable.
And so are you. We just created an Israeli super power that America has no influence over. So do you want America to be stronger than Israel, or Israel stronger than America? We all know which you prefer, whether you recognize it or not.
It looks like it was a missile misfire that wouldn’t have been fired if we weren’t attacking them. We bear the responsibility. You sound like a gay boomer with your fellow traveler nonsense. If this is over in the timeline they say, good. I’m no irgc fanboy. But we are mostly
responsible for that disaster and when some bad actor returns the favor. Just remember to stfu. It’s the cost of war!
Blame the Allies for what happened to the Boche and Japs. Nice try Vladimir.
Whoa tough guy over here. What were your ancestors doing during the war?
We'll see. Or maybe we won't. I don't know.
Yes it’s pretty bad, that’s why the irgc should be removed.
If Kathleen Lowry is right that would make little boys fair game.
Are you sure the US did that?
Yes one should never try to accomplish anything that might have bad unintended consequences.
Except for Hamas or Hezbollah (or Iran), no-one does it on purpose. Russians don't do it on purpose, Israelis don't do it on purpose, and US Air Force also doesn't do it on purpose.
Israelis do it on purpose
Using US taxpayer money
Nope. If Israelis did it on purpose, the ratio of killed combatants to civilians would be 100:1. Instead it is approx 1:1. Which is exactly what you's expect when you have very good intel on combatants hiding in civilan neigborhoods. That is hiding which itself is breaking the lawx of war.
I understand what you mean to say, but remember the firebombing raids on Dresden and Tokyo and the nuclear bombing of two Japanese cities, among other atrocities in the terror bombing raids of WW2. In the last two-three years, Israeli policy in Gaza has been to destroy elementary schools, water treatment plants, hospitals, jails, restaurants -- all buildings and whoever was in them -- in vast areas of Gaza.
Nope. Israelis only touch schools, hospitals etc if these are staging grounds of attacks. Making schools, hospitals etc a staging ground of attacks is itself a war crime - because the military party doing that is responsible for the civilans that would be killed in a response by the adversary.
https://apnews.com/world-news/still-wrecked-from-past-israeli-raids-hospitals-in-northern-gaza-come-under-attack-again-00000192eebfd414a79fffbf88cc0000
https://apnews.com/article/israel-palestinians-hamas-war-news-09-23-2025-3f332c7f524dad1f3434dfb23038c87e
Associated Press works for Hamas. Just like BBC. They are the same news agencies that root for undocumented migrants and against ICE in the US. Or for BLM's mostly peaceful protests in 2020, lol. Or have you heard about BBC reporting on grooming gangs in the UK?
"Associated Press works for Hamas. Just like BBC"
With respect, that's ridiculous.
Happen to catch Piers Morgan the other night? An IDF rep admitted that IDF HQ is bunkered under a residential area in Tel Aviv, as has been widely reported by western media. A war crime as you just pointed out. Please don’t take my word for it, go watch for yourself. I’m legitimately curious as to your response.
I wish I knew enough, but I don’t. I’m just hoping this goes the way Venezuela did. I guess it depends on who takes power in Iran.
There was a plan with Venezuela. The Trump administration had been in communication with Delcy Rodriguez (Maduro’s vice president.)
With Iran, there is apparently no plan at all.
That’s silly. Trump is obviously planning.
He has no plan for after the bombing stops. Read the news.
You believe the news? You take everything Trump says at face value? Of course he’s planning. By that I don’t mean he’s personally designing a successor regime for Iran, just that he’s pushing things in a certain direction, and quite intentionally.
Maybe Netanyahu has some ideas. I don’t think Trump knows enough about Iran.
The plan is no boots on the ground and the Iranians have to take this opportunity to "take back their country" . if they do not do that, then the plan is to come back and do this again whenever it looks like they are getting back up to speed with the nukes.
If the Venezuela adventure is any indication, Iran's government structures will remain as is but will be opened to US business interests. We'll see if that is sustainable.
As long as they stop nuclear proliferation, missile production and military support for Houthies, Hezbollah and Hamas, no-one would care.
The only logical response to Israeli nukes is for their neighbors to get nukes too. That seems to have been the motivation for Fuchs, Oppenheimer, Hall, the Rosenbergs, etc. to supply information on the A Bomb to the Soviets.
Iranian citizens have been powerless victims for decades.
I wouldn’t expect much.
They’re not powerless. It seems to me that though many purportedly hate the regime, they haven’t been willing to sacrifice to overthrow it.
Don't forget that we in the West tend to hear from and interact with Iranians who hate the mullahs. It could well be a massive selection effect.
Yeah exactly my point. All this analysis on potential outcomes, motivations, tactics, goals, etc but no credibly take on what Iranians thought about last years strikes, forget about on the ground real time sentiment.
That argues against regime change being the outcome. I can still see it making the next group of Mullahs rethink overt financing of terrorism and nukes. They might get placid for a while.
What you want and what you get are two different things.
I don’t know if the mullahs will take being neutered. I don’t know if the mullahs are true believers are opportunistic. There are so many variables.
Much like the Iraqi expatriates we listened to before the invasion, who turned out to know nothing about anything but their own foolish ambitions.
I recall Sailer (I think it was Sailer) writing about this a long time ago: the western media was all shocked at the outcome of the Iranian election when Ahmadinejad was re-elected president and concluded that it must have been rigged. After all, everyone they talked to from Iran had been anti-Ahmadinejad. But it turned out all the Persians they talked to were members of the educated westernized class, so they had received a very biased perspective.
That and the fact that although they have a "democratic election" the Mullahs have approval over the candidates. No telling (well I have no way of telling) what would happen in an election in which anyone could run. It is encouraging that Iran at least has a history of democracy (which we and to a lesser extent the British destroyed...over oil)
Anyone who watches a lot of YouTube should be perfectly humbled in his ability to make predictions--especially about the future. The algorithm feeds me a constant stream of what it assumes I want hear then, occasionally I trip something in the algorithm and it feeds me other people confidently explaining why the opposite outcome is inevitable>
I spent months being told the Russians would win any day now then suddenly I learned that the Ukrainians were actually kicking the Russian asses all along. Now a few years later it's still going on.
I don't think so.
Um, 7,00 brave protesters were recently tortured and/or murdered.
Protesting isn’t the same as organized opposition. No leaders, no policies, no numbers.
Even communist regimes had underground dissenters and movements. What does Iran have?
7,000 isn’t enough to topple a regime.
They have a lot.
Until it does. See Russian satellites, and Russia itself. Though what comes next requires more of a Trump diplomacy than a Kissinger diplomacy, as we have learned.
I'm more intrigued by the response from the Democrats. The hysterics are a bit too over the top and shows how this is just political peacocking from Democrats trying to distract from their unwillingness to put forth a resolution against Iran action, but now perform theatrics for effect after the fact. That is why every Democrat is clamoring to get in a social media video clip or MSM soundbite to show their displeasure.
The last thing they ever were going to do would was to have a vote and get it put down on record in Congress against attacking Iran. That creates a permanent mark. That is ready-made midterm material if this works out perfectly (or close enough) for Trump & Co. That would upset major donors of the party who are happy to see a foe in the region taken down that helps their financial interests. It also somewhat shields them from accusations of being unpatriotic.
Not officially being against Trump's actions regarding Iran allows the "anti-war" liberal democrats to keep their false reputations with their base. A true Uniparty system at work.
Why wouldn't America ally with Israel
Would you ally with Fredo or even Barzini rather than Michael
They're taking care of all family business
Btw what's wrong with Muslim counter anything
Why should we ally with anyone over there?
Why not ally with smart competent people in general
I mean, Israel has higher human capital than any Arab nation (or Iran). But that doesn't mean we should send our soldiers to die for them.
3 so far. Maybe a few more before this phase ends
And if this ends the fights against the great Satan not so bad
Lmao the great satan. Your name is David Simon, we all know why you don’t mind this war
And that is something we should be able to discuss without Eric dissolving into name-calling. We all know the anti-semites here. Here, they're just sturm and drang and are ignored.
Bingo - none of the above. In any cost benefit analysis, we would be way ahead if we never spent a dime fighting in the middle east, or giving the hundreds of billions to "our greatest ally". 🤢
I don't totally disagree. But I think the only people who deserve a vote on this are our armed forces, and not the commanders.
1. I support the strikes but there are costs to not even pretending to debate this among the people’s representatives.
2. Almost no one would dare, but it’s not impossible that someone dares to kill high-ranking American officials in America.
There are 538 Senators and Representatives who the second they leave Capitol Hill are very much vulnerable to a motivated hostile state to attack.
This is the risk of normalizing assassinations. It can blowback on our own elites directly.
3. I’m stunned at how little in the discourse Oct 7 has been featured. Maybe our elites want to downplay the fact that Israel is a major player in the American decision to strike Iran and the world has gone made with anti-Jew anti-Israel sentiment *after* Israel was victimized on Oct 7.
Assassinations being unthinkable was the case for a fairly brief period after congress outlawed it in the 1970s. I think we decided that as long as you do it with a drone it doesn't count or something. IANAL.
I seriously doubt Congress outlawing assassinations had any effect.
I find myself leaning towards the idea that world leaders, even our own, should feel like they are at risk, just like average people are in places like Ukraine where world leaders, including our own, deliberately put them at risk.
The kicker in that example is that Putin is quite frankly a dead man if he stops putting Russian soldiers' lives at risk. Neither Zelensky, who can go into exile probably in France, nor any Western backer of his regime, is at substantial risk however the Ukraine conflict pans out and regardless of whether they continue to fight or give it up.
Hmm, that reminds me of someone...the Shah?
Unlike most groups in the Middle East, except the Israelis and the Lebanese Christians and maybe a few others, the Iranians have semi-decent IQ scores, so I'm cautiously hopeful.
They also have a massive, rich, secular, well-educated diaspora which is likely to help with any reconstruction efforts if the Islamic Republic collapses. Iran suffers from the worst brain drain in the world, but the people who left are still patriotic Persians.
Candidate Trump campaigned on no new wars and especially in the Middle East. We voted for no new wars. Americans are suffering, can't afford: rent, groceries, mortgages, can't get jobs, can't make a decent living, paying outrageous taxes. Our tax money should not be using our blood and treasure for Israel. Let Israel fight their own wars. This is NOT America first. This is NOT what his supporters voted for. This is what Charlie Kirk was talking about in the months leading up to his assassination. He kept saying: No war with Iran.
I’m American First and the whole world is celebrating and thanking Trump right now. I was also very much against the Iraq war. Since 1979 the Iranian regime has been the avowed enemy of the US, the largest exporter of terrorism in the world. They were working on building intercontinental ballistic missiles. Trump saw an opportunity and took it. We have not had president with that much fortitude in my long lifetime. This one act has the potential to project a peace through your lifetime and your children’s lifetime.
1. The whole world isn’t celebrating.
2. More importantly, what does on the ground Iranians think? Because that’s who matters as they will need to run their country if the regime collapses. Who will govern?
Iranians are celebrating. You don’t know anything about it because leftwing media won’t cover it.
Yeah sure. I have no doubt some are but how many? That and are they willing to fight and die to overthrow the regime? These are the most impotent questions.
I think few Westerners have detailed knowledge about the political beliefs of 90M Iranians. Looking at rallies in support of Trump in the U.S. and elsewhere tells you jack about Iran itself.
More than in other ME countries.
You used a lot of words to prove you’re not America First
This! I've been supporting Trump in the face of family and friends with TDS, but I'm done. DOGE didn't expose enough waste and fraud, and ICE hasn't deported enough illegals, to make up for a new war.
You have no concept of how little most presidents get done. Since you don’t have a sense of history, you have no patience, but like it or not, Trump is one of the most consequential presidents ever. And you’re whining about him not getting enough done? Get a clue.
What he got done was plenty--until the Iran bombing. Getting us into a new war more than cancels out the good stuff.
Trump just showed there never needed to be Forever Wars. We've been conned for how many decades?
Yes, Trump is getting a lot of stuff done. The ratio of good to counterproductive is not where I'd like it to be, but there's still a lot of good. The problem is that unlike LBJ, he's not doing the hard work in Congress of getting it cemented into law. So, just like his first term, there's very little that won't be immediately reversed the minute the political winds change. I'm looking for something better than that.
> Yes, Trump is getting a lot of stuff done. The ratio of good to counterproductive is not where I'd like it to be, but there's still a lot of good. The problem is that unlike LBJ, he's not doing the hard work in Congress of getting it cemented into law. So, just like his first term, there's very little that won't be immediately reversed the minute the political winds change. I'm looking for something better than that. <
Great--*great*--comment, ReadingProblem.
This is one of the most annoying things about Trump. He still thinks he's real estate developer and all he has to sign some directive and tell his subordinates "go do X".
But the US is not the Trump Organization. It operates according to a bunch of laws. And their will shortly be a new CEO--who may well be hostile to Trump's ideas. The way you make much more enduring change is to actually change the laws.
Trump's had a year with a Republican congress and we still have--for example--TPS, the diversity lottery, "refugee" quotas, a huge H-1B quota, birth tourism, interfering immigration judges and a massive legal immigration quota. Zero legal progress.
"Civil Rights", AA, DIE--same thing. Where's the new law? I'd prefer the wrecking ball and return to freedom of association--everyone is free to discriminate as they wish. But baring that an explicit statement that it is illegal to discriminate against whites men, heterosexuals--no AA, no DEI. Legalize any hiring criteria a company likes--no disparate impact. Send the HR ladies packing.
Tariff--same thing. I'd rather see capital controls--export credits required for import payments--to force a trade balance. But at least Trump is trying to do something with tariffs. But tariffs are a clear Article 1--legislative--power. Congress has to explicitly give Trump the power to set them and negotiate with foreign nations. Nothing done.
Minoritarianism, immigration, feminization, trade, affordable family formation/fertility ... nothing substantive in law.
All the good stuff Trump's done can we whisked away in an afternoon by the next Parasite Party president.
Johnson had a very large majority in Congress. Unfortunately with what he has now, Trump is in no position to propose sweeping legislation.
With God’s help, the Republicans can keep their majority in the midterm elections . Perhaps more can be done.
I know, not easy to hear, but it is what it is. I also think Vance is in a great position for 2028. So all is not lost.
Except the GOP is...
I have such a concept. I worked in the Senate and the Reagan White House. And I can tell you that the main reason nothing gets done is that Republican presidents allow donors to dictate to them, and allow the enemies of their supposed agendas into positions of power in their administrations. In Reagan's second term they were too numerous to name. As for Trump, he hired Suzy Wiles, for heaven's sake! Former Pfizer lackey and Deep State hack. And Pam Bondi, another Deep Stater who helped quash the first Epstein prosecution! Plus he sends clowns with no diplomatic experience, including his son-in-law (whom we were assured we were safe from after he helped trash Trump's first term), to negotiate with the Russians!
I'm sorry, but we've been hornswoggled again by a lying clown. It's time to wake up.
It's just the same old crap in a different bag. As far as I'm concerned, whatever good Trump did, he just wiped out. Apparently America First means Israel and the neocons first. He lied to us, and I fell for it. Well, no more.
As for Vance, I don't see how he can be trusted either. He talked a good game for a while. But then, they all do.
It was a war that would have eventually come to us. That’s why they were building intercontinental ballistic missiles.
"We're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here"
Not heard that one before ;-)
I’m American First and the whole world is celebrating and thanking Trump right now. I was also very much against the Iraq war. Since 1979 the Iranian regime has been the avowed enemy of the US, the largest exporter of terrorism in the world. They were working on building intercontinental ballistic missiles. Trump saw an opportunity and took it. We have not had president with that much fortitude in my long lifetime. This one act has the potential to project a peace through your lifetime and your children’s lifetime.
Nor the “weapons of mass destruction “ bs.
Yeah! And it's a good thing we won the Vietnam War. Otherwise we'd all be speaking Vietnamese!
There is no evidence that Iran was building ICBM's. That false allegation that Iran might someday be a threat to the USA was made to cover up the fact that USA war against Iran is strictly in service to Jewish nationalism.
They have a missile program and a nuclear program, no problem there.
As does Israel.
The Arab nations in the region are siding with Israel against Iran, why would that be?
Your point was that Iran has a nuclear program and a missile program. I pointed out that Israel does as well. Built with fissionable material stolen from the USG. Why do you have a problem with Irans nuke program, but not with Israel’s?
You still believe the propaganda about the current chosen enemy? Show me the actual evidence! Not the bullshit our rulers shovel at us.
I was against the Iraq war—we should have been bombing Iran then. Either you know history or you don’t.
Either you're a credulous boob, or you're not.
Try watching another channel.
It's hardly Israel alone that wants the Iranian regime ended. Assuming all muslims are pals is incorrect. Our long time buddies the Saudis absolutely are behind this too. And if you think only the Israelis don't want the current regime in Iran to have nukes, you are simply incorrect. If the best/only argument against something is that the Israelis are for it (or let's be honest, what people mean is the jews are for it) then it's probably a good idea.
The Saudis are Sunni and see Iran as a threat and rival. They want true U.S. to so their bidding without sacrificing anything themselves. Another ME manipulator. Saudi Arabia sucks.
So,
"war for Israel" = bad,
but
"war for Israel + Saudi Arabia" = good?
I think you are purposely misunderstanding my point. I am merely responding to the antisemitic canard that all military action in the Middle East is only because Israel wants it. You will see at least one other person in this discussion who goes further and assumes that all wars everywhere are ultimately because of Israel. Earlier antisemites would have had the balls (like a drunken Mel Gibson...still love ya, Mel) to just say Jews are responsible for all wars everywhere at all times.
I assume you are one of the people who has never said the latter, possibly never even heard the latter (why would you). I only mention it to explain why it's tiresome and why I might appear to be overreacting to a kind of valid point.
Okay, but *my* point is that I don't care which foreign country wants which war.
If America has to have a war, Americans should choose it.
Americans elected Trump commander in chief. He was negotiating with Iran and decided they needed some incentivizing. You can be against that policy but I am going to call you on it if your claim is that this is just Trump bending to the will of foreigners. The US (and to a lesser extent the UK) are 100% responsible for creating the situation in which Iran is a theocratic autocracy that is both the main sponsor of anti-western terrorism and actively seeking nuclear weapons. I understand that many people in this comments section would prefer a world in which the US is not in charge of global peace but currently we are and the majority of Americans (last I checked) implicitly want that.
Americans elected Trump as Executive, who is supposed to get authorization from the Legislature before launching a war, not just as a Constitutional nicety, but to ensure that it is a project the public actually supports. Polls show most Americans don't support this. Trump undoubtedly knows this.
So why would a formerly popular Executive defy the will of his constituency? One answer is that his real constituency isn't those who elected him.
So why do you love Mel anyway but hate perfectly reasonable people here?
The fact that the Israelis want a country invaded is not the “best/only reason” one might be reticent to invade said foreign country.
I'm merely responding to the antisemitism. I don't disagree with the other points.
You're the one being prejudiced. Who doesn't ignore F U? So you attack reasonable people while not considering your own blanket accusations.
We have been at war with Iran since 79.. no new war is good, ending one that is that old is better.
I can't disagree. I will oppose any long conflict.
In general, I think most presidents get snowed by bureaucrats who are very good at playing Very Serious People and giving the President Goldilocks options designed to make sure they pick the "just right" one.
And, the military industrial complex is no exception and doubtless also deployed the stick "mushroom cloud in Manhattan" and carrot "peace in the Middle East". Neither is remotely likely, and we really don't have any national interest in messing around there.
That said, if someone gave me the chance to kill the Ayatollah, it would be hard to resist.
Iranian state media have officially confirmed that Ayatollah Khamenei is dead.
Unlike Bush Jr., Trump strikes me as a realist and pragmatist so I don’t see the US being bogged down, especially if the Shah’s kid can galvanize the country.
Their parents overthrew the shah. You think the next generation has the courage and bravery to overthrow the current regime? The Shahs son or grandson or whoever will now be installed as ruler? Sounds petty fantastical to me.
If the descendants of the overthrowers have had enough I think they might overthrow the IRGC.
The Shah’s son will be a mediator; I’m not sure he’ll be installed as ruler.
Who knows.
Yes, a bunch of dumb college radicals thoughtousting the Shah hand-in-hand with the Mullahs would "liberate" them. They paid a terrible price and don't think that way anymore.
I'll probably be in the minority in this comment section but I'm glad Trump had the stones to do this. The Iranians have been responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths around the world for the last almost 50 years. I have friends who were blown up and killed or wounded by Iranian EFPs. The Iranians are directly responsible for thousands of American's deaths so it's about time somebody made them pay for it. Every American government till now has cowered to Iranian bluster and threats. Obama tried to suck up to them and pay them off, hoping they'd like us. Instead, they used Obama's billions to spread more death around the world and they still chanted "Death to America." Now it's up to the Iranian people to rise up and take control. This action is giving them their chance to do it.
They’re responsible for a number of American deaths, sure, but in the Middle East. We put ourselves there on another similar crusade (depose bad guy, populace free). Who will be blowing up our soldiers this time around, inciting the next round of vengeance for “targeting Americans” that we put there? Never ends.
Yeah we put ourselves there (meaning the Persian Gulf) in the 1960s when we replaced the Brits (a nice way of saying kicked them out) as the dominant power. This is all explained in J.B. Kelly’s ARABIA, THE GULF, AND THE WEST.
The "thousands" of Americans' deaths means US servicemen in a warzone?
And the "directly responsible for" means Iran provided weapons to Shia militias, some of which weapons were used against Americans?
I'm asking because if so, Russia has a great brief to bomb the US, which provided far more weapons to anti-Russian forces for the specific purpose of killing Russians, both military and civilian.
The US also provided Taiwan $billions of weapons for use against China. If China decides to reincorporate Taiwan and some Chinese get killed by US weapons in the ensuing events, will China have a clear case to bomb the US?
We invaded Iraq in 2003 to protect Israel. Now we're bombing Iran again to protect Israel.
If you are Israeli, great. Not so great if you're an actual American.
Yet none of these hundreds of thousands of deaths for the last 50 years had evidently ever been regarded as sufficient casus belli, so why now?
We have not had an administration that cares about Americans for (over) 50 years.
I'm a fan.
People don't realize all the pies Iran has (had) their fingers in: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Gaza, Yemen, and so on. After the Oct 7 festivities, Israel degraded but did not root out Iranian mischief-making in the region. And, as always, vermin left unexterminated tend to re-infest the area. Same with the nuke development; it would've become an annual chore to bunker-bust the previous year or two's work on the project. Then, all you'd need would be a Biden or Harris or Mayor Pete and four years' clear sailing, and a whole new set of REAL problems would pertain in the region.
With the mullahs deposed, a fully Westernized and US-friendly Shah will be running a rapidly modernizing constitutional monarchy rejoined to the West. The icing on the cake is KSA and Israel signing the Abraham accords and bringing the remaining shards of regional instability under control. With Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon on the road to recovery, the region can finally develop away from its oil wealth and use the talents of its smart and enterprising citizens (and maybe even an Islam modernized for contemporary times) to good effect.
With a bit of luck and some (newly) enlightened leadership both in the region and in a (drastically) reformed UN and EU, the Middle East could be on the verge of a Renaissance unseen in the world for going on 500 years. One can hope.
Iran was even selling missiles to Russia!
Isn't it pretty to think so? My fingers are crossed. I feel like I don't have an understanding of what the average Persian still in Iran thinks and what they are likely to do. I can see some element of the military taking over, the republican guard. Possibly someone with better survival instincts will at least stop funding terrorism until the US elects its next democrat. Maybe?
Sure - every place Israel is killing people Iran is supporting them.
Well done Iran. You are nuts
I'm in with you on your first paragraph. From then on, it's pie-in-the-sky delusional.
You forgot Venezuela, Cuba and a few other sleepers in North and South America.
I wouldn't wish becoming fully Westernized upon my worst enemy, that's the kiss of death for any nation that cares about preserving its culture and traditions and its identity as a people. Pig morality, androgyny, deracination, atomization, and blasphemy are the fruits of joining the West.
Best outcome: regime change to a moderate government, Iran drops bid for nuclear weapons and long-range missiles, big drop in support to terrorism via Iranian proxies, Russian war hurt by loss of some drones provided by Iran, China loses influence in Middle East.
Worst outcome: regime survives and continues weapons and terrorism policies. China sees opportunity to move on Taiwan.
Khamenei is dead, Iranian state TV has confirmed.
He was 86 or so. Presumably they have a bullpen.
He was 86.
The entire bullpen is likely on the Israeli to-do list as well.
They already killed the head of the state. This is a Rubicon that cannot be easily un-crossed, and while they are at it, they can kill every successor as well, until they either get what they want or their lack of intelligence data stops them.
And looking at the recent developments, they don't seem to be suffering from a lack of intelligence data.
President Trump has said all along that he wants to end wars, and although he's not perfect at it, he's been generally successful. It seems that he views what the ayatollahs have been doing as waging a guerilla/terrorist war against Israel, the U.S. and any other country they've perceived as being in the Israel/U.S. camp for decades now. So he regards, and I agree, that attacking Iran isn't STARTING a new war but rather is the only possible way to END that long lasting war.
So starting a war is ending a war - huh?
No, winning a war is ending a war.
War is peace, freedom is slavery, right? Go fuck yourself
You sound like one of those "defund the police to reduce crime" idiots.
You’re America Second. Own it
Should have paid attention to your username.
No point arguing with degenerates like you.