Is military action against Iran an inevitability?

[Der_Trihs]

@tomndebb

When we overthrew their republic and installed the Shah, it was part of our entry into the Great Game between Britain and Russia, re-inforced by our current, (at that time), anachronistic phobia about “world wide Communism.”
While the Shah ruled, we were actually friendly to Iran, (if, unfortunately, more friendly to the Shah than his citizens).

Installing the Shah was an act of aggression against Iran, period. We were not “friendly” with them at all; we were their enemies and victimizers. Just because we did it using a puppet doesn’t make it any less of an act of aggression.

@tomndebb

We limit our actual “aggression” to attempts to restrict trade or isolate them politically, not with invasions.

Nonsense; we used Saddam Hussein to stage a proxy invasion, killing huge numbers of Iranians. And we support groups against Iran that even our own State Department calls “terrorists”. And Bush effectively threatened to use nuclear weapons on them with his “refusal to take nuclear strikes off the table.” So that’s terrorism, attempted conquest, and a threat of genocide.

@tomndebb

If we were going to go after anyone, it would seem that North Korea, with its immediate threat to actual allies South Korea and Japan, would be a better target, yet there was no serious threat recorded against Korea, even when it was testing its own bombs and testing missiles across Japanese territory.

Because they could ruin South Korea if they wanted to, and have nothing worth stealing.