I’m pretty sure wolfpup is pointing out that murdering a bunch of children, e.g. is likely to create terrorists. Are you a fan of giving terrorists reasonable justification?
I’m also concerned about rapists in the Catholic Church but I’m not going to murder the pope without some idea of how that would actually help.
If his argument is that there may be some terrorist cells outside the country, then I am much less worried about those if they lose the backing of Iran, the largest state sponsor of terrorism on the planet.
By no means do I claim to be an expert on the Middle East But I do believe Iran’s anger is projected at Israel and the United States as we generally back Israel’s play against there nearer ending spats against Islamic adversaries in the region… Which is everyone at times to time! To say Iran backs terrorism is basically the norm for everyone of that region. All those countries have contributed to terrorism somewhere in the world, especially with 911. Which I might add had a strong Saudi fingerprint ! For the last 70 years are underlying interest is oil as it is today, which now includes Venezuela ! To me nothing has changed from the Stone Age, if another tribe is eating your deer and rabbits you eliminate them so they don’t! …..Truthfully Trump’s feelings are Who is going to stop us ? With his BS narratives.!
That’s a tired talking point trotted out over and over by people who don’t understand terrorism or the motivations of terrorists.
People take political actions, including terrorism, when they believe those actions will help them achieve certain goals. Dismantling state sponsors of terrorism makes terrorism less effective and thus less attractive.
To a point, of course Venezuela is not an official colony of the U.S. but the U.S. is to a great extent, in the words of one Donald Trump “Running the country”, Venezuela has lost the ability to decide to whom to sell their oil, for example.
And that may be enough to prevent the closing, then again it may not, drones are cheap to manufacture and can be used for the purpose, in the end the only way to stop the Iranians meddling with the strait may be to occupy a good stretch of coastal areas with actual boots on the ground (and even that may fail).
Again is not a contest of seeing who runs out of ammo first, the point is that at some moment Israel & the U.S. will have to stop for a while to resupply because their stockpiles are dwindling faster than can be replaced. At that point Iran can take a breather and reorganize, may be.
Yes, that point is months away. Yes, there are specific munitions that we couldn’t use at the current level for thay long, but we have enough other munitions that we certainly wouldn’t have to give Iran a break. Even if someone writes a scary headline that’s technically true for a handful of munition types.
That’s exactly what I’m pointing out. And I don’t think the events of 9/11 are “a tired talking point”, though the root cause was different, but still the result of US hostilities.
That was Bush Junior’s rationale for invading Iraq. Which only made ISIS much stronger.
But 'nuff said. I believe we’re starting to get off topic, but it’s very much on topic to suggest that this unprovoked hosility by the US will have long-term unintended consequences.
May be, but I don’t believe the U.S. can continue this level of bombing for ever, eventually they’ll have to slow the tempo, will Iran outlast that “eventually”, I guess we’ll see.
I salute those children for their sacrifice, then. It’s a shame it will probably be in vain.
9/11 didn’t happen because people were mad that Americab forces killed their family members. It’s a great example of the actual reasons for terrorism, in that case deep ideological opposition to liberalism.
Naaaaah. If you read Bin Laden’s reasoning that is not true, despite what Zoomer TikTok edits of Bin Laden speeches would have you believe.
Your intel on Iraq is a decade out of date.
Bombings with no plan are not remotely “dismantling state sponsors of terrorism”. Certainly not bombing schools. Even bombing ayatollahs isn’t going to accomplish anything but chaos and unpredictable outcomes without careful stage-setting and long-term planning.
And sure, terrorist planners and organizers usually have political goals and motivations. But terrorist recruits and soldiers? Those are very likely to be relatives and survivors of mass murder/mass bombings.
Trauma begets trauma. There’s a reason why populations that are mostly comfortable and have little desperation produce much fewer fanatics and terrorists. We’re creating more and more fanatics and terrorist with every civilian we traumatize.
If Iran was not in the dire economic, political and environmental straits it is I would say that this attack will surely result in a complete failure.
Given Iran’s situation, there is the actual possibility of a U.S. & Israel “win”, if we define “winning” as the fall of the regime.
Whether the replacement will be any better… is another question entirely.
The biggest possibility, it seems to me, is that if the regime falls Iran becomes a failed state, destabilizing the surrounding area (perhaps more than it currently does from an U.S. perspective, perhaps less, perhaps the same) and life in Iran becomes absolute hell for a decade or more, after that is impossible to predict.
I agree with this assessment. Throwing a lot of bombs at people you hate (which is as deep as the thinking of Trump and Hegseth ever goes) is very unlikely to result in an orderly reasonable outcome.
Almost like Israel and the US waited for the opportune moment to attack.
Has this ever happened to a country with a long history of being a country? All the examples I can think of of failed states were “countries” drawn in the sand by colonial powers on their way out of a region. Iran is not like that.
Maybe China after the Qing? But even that was more of a civil war than a failed state, and the Japanese were occupying parts of China. The chaos wouldn’t have lasted so long without them
States can fail in different ways, dividing on ethnic lines in a new-ish country is just one of them.
I see you cite China in your ETA, a state in a prolonged enough civil war is also a failed state.
But what I’m envisioning is a extremely weak central government unable to fix the economic and environmental problems (that will not go away with the mullahs), with little or no power outside Teheran, perhaps being periodically replaced by coup after coup depending on which faction has the upper hand at a given point.
Also, I’m pretty doubtful about the U.S. and Israel even allowing Iran to become a democracy.
Why? because is not in the best interests of the U.S. and specially Israel to have a democratic Iran, of all the actions taken by the current regime the most (and probably the only) one with unequivocal popular support is opposition to Israel (and to some extent the U.S.).
A democratic Iran is not a friendly Iran.
Iran itself became a failed state when the Shah’s government collapsed. The current regime was able to consolidate power quickly enough in the aftermath that this was short-lived although presumably this is also not a desirable outcome.
It appears that the US at least doesn’t really care what comes after and isn’t going to actually occupy and attempt to install any particular government. So I guess they’d allow anything, or they’d decide that some future government is not what they want and bomb them?
Yeah, but what happens when (IF!) Iran becomes democratic and votes in a rabidly anti-Israel and anti-american administration?.
One you’ve bombed your way to regime change once, why not do it again?.
ETA: No to mention the tried and true method of the military coup, already used in Iran, Chile, Argentina, etc, etc.