First, Trump and company have been systematically firing or sidelining the competent professionals in favor of incompetent toadies.
Second, there’s no reason to assume that a democratic Iran wouldn’t be hostile to Israel and the US; anything other than hostility would be irrational and self destructive on their part. We’re their enemy and for the foreseeable future always will be.
Funny comparison.
I don’t like people who cut me off on the freeway. I also don’t like serial killers. I don’t act like society needs to treat serial killers and unsafe lane mergers the same way, because I recognize that there are far more categories in the world than “people I like” and “people I don’t like”.
You know, that’s pretty funny, I must have missed the time when Bibi mowed down 30,000 of the people who protested his judicial reform bill, which is pretty weird, because I was at some of those protests. I guess I must have been looking in the other direction.
See, there’s your mistake right there. Assuming we’re civilized.
I mean, @Wesley_Clark didn’t say that a more responsible and democratic Iranian government would automatically not be hostile, to some degree, towards Israel and the US, just that it would be better for the US. I tend to agree, just because it would be better for everybody involved, first and foremost the Iranian people.
But yeah, I agree with you that Iran would be foolish not to continue regarding the US and Israel, and any other allies in this aggressive attack, with at least a very wary eye. We have not shown a lot of concern for the human rights of their people, except for a bit of lip service when it’s their own government that’s killing them.
Iran has killed tens of thousands of civilian protesters; Israel has killed tens of thousands of civilians in Gaza; America has killed hundreds of thousands of children abroad by cutting off lifesaving aid. I don’t see how the first is necessarily so much more morally reprehensible than the other two.
“Robust” is a very polite way to describe Trump’s physique.
Nobody knows what’s going to happen here. If this means the end of the Iranian regime, with it being replaced by the more liberal democracy that led Iran before the revolution, that’s an immeasurably good outcome. I can’t discount the importance of that simply because it will redound to the political benefit of a man I despise, whose demise I pray for daily. Trump isn’t the only monster in the world.
So I opposed Trump’s action before he took it, but now that it’s irrevocably in motion, different calculus is needed. A military operation has to be judged partially by the long-term effects it produces. Much as it grates me to say, some overarching good outcomes are still on the table here, and I think it’s too early to say.
It was led by a dictator, that we supported after helping remove that democratic government. The reason we hated them so much is that they dared throw our dictator out of power. Not because we ever supported democracy.
We’ve never been the “good guys” there. Just a whip beating the Iranian people for the crime of insufficient submission.
Very well put.
And I note that Wesley Clark failed to expressly respond whether or not he approves of the US - or other nations - violently interfering within another sovereign state’s borders when we consider it in our interest. Is it made more legitimate just because the aggressor is more powerful? Is it legitimate for other nations to do so - say, to the US or Israel - in return?
America as a nation is no better than Russia, that’s for sure.
…and elementary schools. On day 1 the US / Israel blew up an elementary school killing 180.
But of course it’s all justified because of the…what threat on US again?
What does this question mean?
Other countries are already doing this sort of thing and have for literally years. Putin has repeatedly tried to have Zelensky killed and in the last round of fighting Iran tried to kill Netanyahu with a UAV.
If someone is coming at you with a metal pipe, swinging it at your head over and over again, so you punch them back, it’s a bit silly to freak out and shout “nnnoooooo! If you hit them it will justify them hitting you back!”. They’re already trying.
“You don’t want to give Putin the idea to do what he’s already been trying to do for years” is a silly argument.
If Iran and Russia are doing it, that makes it okay!
That’s a novel argument.
Notice Trump STILL has not addressed the nation (well, apart from a few poorly thought out tweets). Almost certainly a large majority of Americans are no fans of the Iranian regime. But so what? Why now? In my heart of hearts, I just know that Trump has no plan whatsoever beyond agreeing to have Israel do the decapitation strikes and rolling the dice to see what happens afterwards. Questions like, what long term effects will this regional instability introduce, never entered his tiny little brain.
I do not think the question is phrased in a confusing matter at all. I think it very common for nations to claim THEIR use of force is legitimate, but their target’s not. The legitimacy of Israel’s or the US’s actions and policies are definitely viewed differently by other states.
Personally, I don’t tend to favor any state actions that smack of tribalism.
In the end, legitimacy tends to be determined by the victors - not necessarily those in the right.
What does it mean for military action to be “legitimate”? In whose eyes? A third party? The people being attacked? The people attacking?
The truth is that whether a conflict is viewed as “legitimate” or not has absolutely nothing to do with international law. It’s all about politics and international relations.
What I care about is whether a given military action makes the world a better or worse place.
The purpose of the Rules of War is akin to game theory. If both sides limit certain sorts of actions, that’s better for everyone on both sides. If one side is already breaking the rules, the other side isn’t virtuous because they let people like Khamenei and Putin get away with murder.
That’s always been the case.
The problem with people like Putin and Khamenei is that they follow this philosophy, described well in the Dune books:
When I am weaker than you, I ask you for freedom because that is according to your principles; when I am stronger than you, I take away your freedom because that is according to my principles
Letting them do this is not virtuous, it’s idiotic.
Khamenei got exactly what he deserved, and exactly what he already tried to do to Netanyahu.
…and to hell with concerns about long term ramifications or civilian casualties! If something superficially with zero long term planning appears to be good, then it’s GOOD, end of story!
You are describing Israel and Trump as well, except they are more destructive.
It’s disingenuous of the US to bomb Iran for the purposes of dismantling Iran’s nuclear program when it was the US that unilaterally pulled out of the Iran Nuclear deal.
And while the US did not kill the Iranian protesters and does not bear that blame, the reinstated sanctions created the economic conditions for the protests – arguably the intention of the sanctions were to create hardship and encourage regime change.
The US had other tools at our disposal to affect regime change and end nuclear ambition, but we chose to use force instead.
Iran’s sponsorship of violence and terrorism did need to be addressed and maybe it would come to bombing, but I can’t help but feel we would have had more leverage with the nuclear deal in place.