This is a live link from NBC News.
First post at the bottom reads:
Then there’s this from Trump.
I can’t quote it now, but I just watched a video of Trump telling the Iranian military to put their weapons down now or “face certain death”.
Hid off-topic hijack of thread.
I’m wondering if I should do something about my 401k or investments if this is going to lead to a stock crash.
Oh gosh.
Stay safe, @Alessan !
I really wonder what the end goal is. Israel’s POV is no surprise, they’ve been after Iran for various reasons for decades, and of course, Netanyahu has reasons at home to want to buff his hawk profile and distract the population.
I suspect Trump’s timing is based as much on the current revelations about his information coming up in the Epstein files (albeit there’s been quite the effort to damage the credibility of the witness, and I lack the information to judge accuracy), along with wanting to look strong after loosing the current legal battles on tariffs, and wanting his party to look strong and hawkish before midterms.
The thought that he’s trying to provoke a response from Iran to justify “emergency” measures at home is also a terrible suspicion of mine.
As a similar motivation, I wouldn’t be surprised if part of the goal (as he repeatedly mentions the regime) to enforce a regime change to a compliant puppet, with the expected deals to hand him a big “win” before the midterms, and of course the enrichment of himself.
I feel sorry for none at the top - the Iranian leaders are far from saints as are those at the top in Israel and the USA, but plenty the ones who are going to loose family, futures, and lives in this conflict.
So, I guess going back on his insistence that the Iranian nuclear program had been entirely and completely obliterated by TFG’s last act of war over there was less important than the next round of utter insanity to divert attention from the Epstein files.
This seems like one of those occasions where the old Churchill quote is appropriate; "If Hitler invaded Hell, I would make at least a favourable reference to the Devil in the House of Commons.”
I shan’t quote it but here’s a link to the full text of the announcement from the White House.
The New York Times makes this salient point:
The goal as described by Trump is […] to wipe out the leadership and make way for a revolution. It is a high-risk move: There are almost no successful examples in modern history of regime change through an air campaign.
Looks to me like a pointless act of aggression.
It’s not pointless. It’s yet another squirrel as I call it. He needs a distraction from all the evil he’s doing domestically.
And Reza Pahlavi has weighed in. (This is from the live updates link in the OP.)
Which is which, in this case? Because while I’m not a fan of Trump, there’s no way I’ll be siding with the people launching missiles at me.
The end goal is to eliminate the current government is my best guess.
I did not deny that was the stated goal per the releases, I was speculating on additional goals and timing. Or, you could look at @Chad_Sudan’s post, and wonder why, if the regime’s violence against it’s own people (one of the stated motivations) was a real goal, why they waited up until now to launch an attack. I think it’s fair to assume that the stated goals are only part of the reason for the attacks.
Good points. We may never know hidden motivations. Why they waited? My guess is it took time to get assets in place and targeting information.
Trump’s a narcissist; it’s quite possible the main reason is just to salve his ego. He did publicly take a Supreme Court loss over his tariff obsession recently after all, bombing Iran lets him feel powerful again.
Unfortunately if that is the goal, the method is woefully insufficient. Airstrikes can kill a tremendous number of people but do little to affect regime change.
On the other hand as demonstrated by things like the way he keeps trying to use tariffs, Trump doesn’t understand and refuses to learn how things actually work. As far as he’s concerned if he wants to “regime change” Iran with air strikes, it’ll work because he’s commanded it to work and by definition, he’s never wrong and never fails.
Yeah, it’s horseshit, and the NYT’s qualifying language is very strange. “Almost” no successful examples of regime change “through an air campaign”? Almost means “not zero.” So… what is the precedent? Even a garbage example like Grenada required boots on the ground.
My Iranian wife absolutely loathes the Islamic regime, yet she’s upset and angry about the arrogance and ignorance that has led American leaders, yet again, to engage in an ill-considered campaign of destruction. Even if the US air strikes somehow manage to perfectly and surgically eliminate only the Supreme Leader and his Islamic allies and the top layer of the IRGC, the Iranian people will not be magically unshackled in a glorious rise of grateful revolution. The middle and lower tiers of the IRGC are deeply embedded throughout the Iranian economy, and will not surrender their power willingly; likewise, the hundreds of thousands of Basiji goons stationed in neighborhoods across the country represent a noncentralized force of thuggery that cannot be bombed. “I know my people,” my wife spat bitterly. “This is going to be a clusterfuck.”
And the less said about that worthless dipshit Reza Pahlavi, the better.
What infuriating and presumptuous stupidity on the part of Trump and his culturally, historically illiterate minions.
Well, I have to give the Trump administration credit for at least one thing:
Unlike the Bush administration and its invasion of Iraq, they didn’t spend months on a misinformation campaign to obtain congressional approval.
Instead, they just…bypassed Congress altogether.
Also, bombing people with the claim you want to overthrow their government is a great way to convince the populace to support that government out of spite. That’s almost certainly one of the reasons the IRGC likes to provoke attacks by foreigners, bombing Iran increases regime support since people don’t like being bombed. And of course, nothing supports government rhetoric about the threat of evil foreigners like attacks by the evil foreigners in question.
Arguably… Japan in August 1945. But that was a pretty extreme use of “air campaign”.
Other than that - can’t think of a single example of regime change solely through the use of bombs dropped from the air.