This is not the end. This is the beginning of another Iraq war, set up exactly the same way: claiming, with dubious proof, an imminent risk from weapons of mass destruction.
Iran’s options here are to bomb US bases, which are a lot closer by, mine the Strait of Hormuz, blow up oil infrastructure in nearby countries who are harboring US bases.
This might risk Iran a much larger war but the alternative of doing nothing and showing the world they won’t defend themselves is worse.
The US will again bankroll another big, more expensive war to the tune of trillions more in debt. Another decade of war ahead with no end in sight.
Meanwhile, new enemies will be made for the US as a young generation grows up living through this. The cycle repeats.
I could be wrong in the end, but my read is that there really isn't the appetite anywhere near the levels during post 9/11 or cold war to enter a war. Not in the US, and likely not in Iran either.
Its hard to think of a full scale war that was started by the U.S. that didn't have popular approval at the time it was launched.
The lack of appetite in the US didn’t stop this. And the lack of appetite among normal Iranians won’t matter much.
War is better for regime survival than peace. This is a country ruled by a very scared elite that isn’t held accountable for anything and whose only means of survival is creating continuous distractions from domestic failures. And it’s similar in Iran.
The Iranian regime has gone through serious military blows in the past and survived. Their best course of action is de-escalation and regaining domestic control.
Not when your adversary has air superiority and they can just kill at will the leaders and elite and not the schmucks. Israel's tactics is to kill important people and links.
A democratically elected government that then flaunts the law and the constitution, such as illegally attacking another country without congressional approval, is a regime. Particularly when it has historically low approval ratings.
>But Trump is still running ahead of his approval rating at this point in his first term. And at this point in his second term, he’s actually running slightly ahead of Obama and Bush at this point in their second terms.
Israel's government is probably only in power as long as they continue to start and wage war against countries in the neighborhood. It was very convenient for them, that the attack of October 7th happened, just when ten thousands of people went on the streets to protest against their attempt to take away power from the judges and elevate themselves.
In the US the election might have been tempered with, according to newest reports, so the government might not even be actually democratically elected and Trump is playing the autocrat's playbook, going as far as arresting political opponents without a warrant.
Iran no question there.
That makes 3 out of 3 in my book.
I am not so sure your statement is footed on a solid base these days.
That will be hard to do with a whole Iraq in between. I don't think Israel's military has what it takes. They already struggled in Gaza and are on the lifeline of US support. US could probably not even do it with massive amount of effort, and it would turn into a second Vietnam for them. Without troops on the ground no chance anyway.
how long did it take to kill bin laden, the most wanted man on the planet? and what happened to afghanistan more than a decade after he was actually killed
this isnt software bro. its probabilistic and has high variance. even then the expected value is vietnam
that read would have predicted the US not bombing not bombing iran, and yet here we are. the current administration doesnt care what people want. trumps own base is against and they'll still do it. the "nothing ever happens" bet is not looking likely. with the calculus trump and netenyahu have shown, this looks like its heading towards US boots in iran
Trump only wants to get richer. He'll do as many wars as he can get away with. Laws don't matter anymore. He just struck Iran because he felt like it and announced it on his social media network. This is beyond Idoicracy.
>...decided on his own to strike without congress.
The US defense establishment has been looking to attack Iran for decades. "Decided on his own", seems inaccurate in this regard. The outrage over unauthorized uses of military force is largely performative partisan outrage. Although I would personally regard it as unconstitutional, it is the established norm for US Presidents to order airstrikes. There are very few politicians who have been consistent in their opposition to this.
Sure. Make a technical analysis of a casual comment. Of course he has support from others. At the very least defense contractors who profit from this. My comment was from his perspective. He only cares to get richer.
There's always been an authorization for military force even if it's a blanket one and they claim they're fighting ISIS, at least there has been deniability. Here there's no authorization, it's unconstitutional. I don't care about partisan politics. Most politicians are scummy.
I'm not sure how it will enrich Trump. I can see how it will appease the interventionist faction. Previously, these people styled themselves as, "The adults in the room".
However aside from a few consistent non-interventionists, opposing partisans seem to uniformly be using this as yet another opportunity to attack. So even there it hasn't served to appease all of the interventionists.
Simply put, bribes. Trump won't talk to you for less than a million if your name isn't Putin. It was an illegal strike. Should we be praising him for attacking random countries without authorization by congress? I think it's a very valid critique. Especially since this particular person literally tried to overthrow the government in 2021 and continues to act consistently as if laws don't apply.
As an outsider, I believe that the outcome would be exactly the same: Trump did not push a minority. Of course it is politics, the other side would say something bad about him. Both parties are supporting Israel unconditionally. Maybe I am being naive.
It’s hard to think of another president with a huge number of such dedicated followers, who actively hates the mass of Americans who don’t support him, and with a Congress so unwilling to exercise its power.
Let’s say Trump decides to order an invasion. What would happen then? Mass protests? Surely. Impeachment? No way. Military decides enough is enough and removes him? Definitely not. He realizes how unpopular this move is and backs down? Lol. Lmao.
What I'm missing is that as one by one middle eastern countries are stomped to the curb, finding a balance between the countries gets harder. The more functional countries there are, the more room for negotiation, realignment, factions, and thus stability. We should want a muddy mess of interlinked allies. If after Egypt, Lybia, Syria, Iraq now Iran gets stomped, it's easier for the remaining powers to swing hard left out right instead of to continue muddying forward.
That's a big leap. Nothing suggests a ground operation or occupation, which was the most costly part of the Iraq war, and importantly, was part of it from the beginning. Experience suggests that Trump would rather walk away from Iran after an exchange of strikes and claim victory then double down in a land war.
Trump's handling of military strikes/operations, which have been mostly symbolic. Killing Soleimani, and not retaliating to the retaliationary strikes. A completely useless strike on Shayrat airbase in Syria. Pulling out of Yemen strikes this year because it was ineffective (never admitting to this though). Trump wants to be known as a deal maker. I don't think that has changed, he's just become more delusional regarding the practicality.
You must be trolling. In case you are not - the US attacked their nuclear research facilities. This is as far removed from attacking "them", as Iranian people, as it gets.
You're the one who must be trolling. If China bombed American nuclear research facilities, I can't imagine many Americans would agree it's "not an attack on the American people".
Dubious proof?! Iran has been blatantly pursuing nuclear weapons for decades - and the west (along with much of the rest of the world and the middle east) has been working to counter it the whole time.
Remember that in the middle east, Iran is considered a dire enemy.
If it wanted nuclear weapons, it would just buy some from Pakistan.
Their actions do not follow the conclusion you state.
What is clear now though to any Iranian is that they should get nuclear weapons asap.
Diplomacy is just a tool used by the west to string you along while they get ready to bomb you
It is very likely false that Iran had nuclear weapons, or was within weeks of having them. This was also the position of US intelligence, until they were forced by higher-ups to speak different words.
Of course, Iran very much wanted the ability to make a nuke, and they probably could have had one ready in 1 or 2 years. But the proof put forward in defense of this strike is claiming Iran was weeks away from nukes. That proof is dubious.
(Also interesting to consider how US retreat from the nuclear deal under Trump 1 has affected and shaped the current situation)
No it hasn't, you don't sit on 60%-enriched Uranium for 3 years (they announced it back in 2022!) if you plan to make a bomb.
IAEA also confirmed that Iran didn't have ongoing military nuclear project.
The reason why they raised their enrichment level was to raise their bargaining power to force the US to come back to the negotiation table in an attempt to get rid of the sanctions.
They almost succeeded since US and Iran were supposed to meet last Sunday, but that was not taking Israel into account, which killed the chief negotiator and convinced Trump to bomb Iran just 3 days in the “two weeks” negotiation deadline he had set earlier this week.
Yes, dubious proof. A quick Google search can reveal this claim has been bs for decades, consistently evaluated by the US’ own intelligence, up until a day ago [0]
Do you think there will be boots on the ground? It seems more likely to me that Trump will escalate only through air attacks, fail to achieve much, and then either end the war by walking away, or throwing nukes.
Iran’s options here are to bomb US bases, which are a lot closer by, mine the Strait of Hormuz, blow up oil infrastructure in nearby countries who are harboring US bases.
This might risk Iran a much larger war but the alternative of doing nothing and showing the world they won’t defend themselves is worse.
The US will again bankroll another big, more expensive war to the tune of trillions more in debt. Another decade of war ahead with no end in sight.
Meanwhile, new enemies will be made for the US as a young generation grows up living through this. The cycle repeats.