Yes, this is some kind of inane equation, this is bad man and bad regime. Solution, kill bad man, bomb regime. I suppose this is Trump's mentality, the man of peace.
Yes, this is some kind of inane equation, this is bad man and bad regime. Solution, kill bad man, bomb regime. I suppose this is Trump's mentality, the man of peace.
Of course plenty of Iranians are celebrating and I don't think anyone here is saying that that country's regime is anything but repressive.
But I don’t see a happy quick-fix outcome here. Like @Doublethink I see every possibility of a prolonged Iranian civil war with all the complex and deadly layers such a thing entails, including sectarian and factional violence, backing for one side or another by competing geopolitical blocs and extensive destruction and loss of life.
I hope I'm wrong.
Yes, 81% of 90 million Iranians could math as "plenty." The question is why are so many non-Iranians suffering from the sads about it? It might be wise to keep the powder dry for a couple of weeks, to see what transpires. Yes, a couple of weeks. The Trump era/doctrine includes an overwhelming show of military force and a quick exit. The Maduro operation as a case in point, and then there was the '12-Day War' of last June (Operation Rising Lion). There is no reason to think that this (Operation Epic Fury) should be different. Trump, despite what anyone might think, is forever-war adverse, and always has been.
Not surprisingly, conflicts can be relatively short-lived when the goal isn't money laundering.
Maybe, but the US and Israel show no signs (yet) of letting up on the bombing. Meanwhile, civilians continue to be killed, and a couple of weeks will see the total death toll rise considerably.
Of course plenty of Iranians are celebrating and I don't think anyone here is saying that that country's regime is anything but repressive.
But I don’t see a happy quick-fix outcome here. Like @Doublethink I see every possibility of a prolonged Iranian civil war with all the complex and deadly layers such a thing entails, including sectarian and factional violence, backing for one side or another by competing geopolitical blocs and extensive destruction and loss of life.
I hope I'm wrong.
Yes, 81% of 90 million Iranians could math as "plenty."
You're still conflating "want gone" with "will celebrate large scale bombing by a foreign power". Care to address the distinction?
Y'all have access to YouTube? TikTok? Instagram? X?
Search terms: "Iranian's celebrate"
Any verifiable sources? I doubt the parents of the kids Trump murdered are celebrating. Even if some Iranians are celebrating, so what? Some people cheered 9/11 too.
A few small groups overseas were recorded celebrating immediately after the 9/11 attacks. These events were covered by major news outlets at the time and were understood as limited reactions by specific groups, not by entire populations or nations. They were also condemned by many leaders in those same regions.
No credible evidence supports claims that large groups within the United States celebrated the collapse of the towers. Assertions of widespread domestic celebration have been repeatedly investigated and found to be unsubstantiated.
Of course plenty of Iranians are celebrating and I don't think anyone here is saying that that country's regime is anything but repressive.
But I don’t see a happy quick-fix outcome here. Like @Doublethink I see every possibility of a prolonged Iranian civil war with all the complex and deadly layers such a thing entails, including sectarian and factional violence, backing for one side or another by competing geopolitical blocs and extensive destruction and loss of life.
I hope I'm wrong.
Yes, 81% of 90 million Iranians could math as "plenty." The question is why are so many non-Iranians suffering from the sads about it? It might be wise to keep the powder dry for a couple of weeks, to see what transpires. Yes, a couple of weeks. The Trump era/doctrine includes an overwhelming show of military force and a quick exit. The Maduro operation as a case in point, and then there was the '12-Day War' of last June (Operation Rising Lion). There is no reason to think that this (Operation Epic Fury) should be different. Trump, despite what anyone might think, is forever-war adverse, and always has been.
Not surprisingly, conflicts can be relatively short-lived when the goal isn't money laundering.
Notably, Maduro has not been replaced by a leader of the opposition - which presumably you would want if you think he rigged the election. He was instead replaced by his vice-president and Trump has promised to syphon off oil funds to an account under his personal control (not, say, democratic Venezuelan control). I am not clear how ordinary Venazuelans are now better off, or have more democratic control of their government ?
By extension, if Trump does the same thing in Iran - the people will have endured the bombing and not ended up with a less repressive regime.
Of course plenty of Iranians are celebrating and I don't think anyone here is saying that that country's regime is anything but repressive.
But I don’t see a happy quick-fix outcome here. Like @Doublethink I see every possibility of a prolonged Iranian civil war with all the complex and deadly layers such a thing entails, including sectarian and factional violence, backing for one side or another by competing geopolitical blocs and extensive destruction and loss of life.
I hope I'm wrong.
The Trump era/doctrine includes an overwhelming show of military force and a quick exit. The Maduro operation as a case in point, and then there was the '12-Day War' of last June (Operation Rising Lion). There is no reason to think that this (Operation Epic Fury) should be different.
You're still conflating "want gone" with "will celebrate large scale bombing by a foreign power". Care to address the distinction?
Sure. I'm old enough to remember the fall of the Shah of Iran in '79. Also the student protests in the late '90's that included dissent about mandatory hijab-wearing and allegations of broad electoral fraud. The regime that has now been eliminated with the chopping off of the snake's head, was an oppressive Islamic (radical Shiite) theocracy. It was also a self-serving economic pyramid-scheme benefitting the oppressors at the expense of the masses. For context google the supremely dead leader's son Mojtaba Khamenei and his £100 million flat in North London.
I don't know how well versed you are with respect to the protests we've seen in the past decade or so, but the issue is economic and religious in nature. Diversity of opinion is welcome here, (I hope) while in Iran, up until 24 hours ago, it would get you executed.
The working class is the core of the anti-regime protesting and for the past ten years they have been viciously attacked and killed for expressing a desire for a whole new system of government. They've been promised help from US Presidents from Carter to the present, and now they are celebrating the fact that they have received the precise kind of help they needed. Not polite jazz hands, not pallets of cash for the Ayatollah, but good ol' 'Merican bombs bursting in air for a people oppressed. Freedom from tyranny.
The distinction is clear. The people are amassed in the streets, celebrating.
Except the regime is still there, the IRG are still there, and hundreds of innocent people are dead. The Iranian people are no more "free" than they were yesterday.
[<snip> The regime that has now been eliminated with the chopping off of the snake's head <snip>
It remains to be seen whether the regime has been eliminated, and whether it was a serpent’s head or a Hydra’s head.
Fair enough. However it’s also fair to say that the IRGC has its hands rather full right now. Please do let me know who emerges in the Ayatollah’s place. Also, if you don’t mind disclosing his location I’ll pass that info along to the USS Abraham Lincoln. On to the next one.
The people are amassed in the streets, celebrating.
"Mission accomplished", you mean? Like when Bush celebrated the defeat of the Iraqi regime?
Most of the people of Afghanistan were happy to see the Taliban chased out of Kabul, and I doubt anyone much mourns Saddam Hussein, but that doesn't mean that the Allied invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were on balance good ideas.
Traditional Just War theory has seven distinct criteria, and you have to meet all of them for a war to be just. Saying that the Iranian population are happy at the assault meets one of the criteria. You still need to tick off the other six.
(The traditional criteria, by the way, are:
Just cause;
Final resort;
Legitimate authority;
Just intention (this doesn't only mean you mean well; it also means you have well-defined war aims);
Just means;
Reasonable prospect of success;
The benefits outweigh the harms.)
Killing the leader of the other side is not in itself a well-defined just intention. Effecting regime change may be, but it is at minimum not clear that killing Khameini is part of a well-defined plan with a reasonable prospect of success.
[<snip> The regime that has now been eliminated with the chopping off of the snake's head <snip>
It remains to be seen whether the regime has been eliminated, and whether it was a serpent’s head or a Hydra’s head.
Fair enough. However it’s also fair to say that the IRGC has its hands rather full right now. Please do let me know who emerges in the Ayatollah’s place. Also, if you don’t mind disclosing his location I’ll pass that info along to the USS Abraham Lincoln. On to the next one.
The next potential disaster you mean?
Iraq and Afghanistan don't add up to a good track record.
I'd be delighted if a lovely and cuddly regime emerges to replace the current repressive regime in Iran. I'd be the first to congratulate you.
Thing is, we are dealing with Real Life and Real Life is messy.
I'm old enough to remember the 1979 revolution and was rather pleased about it at the time. I quickly realised that the 'revolution eats its children.'
I hope that doesn't happen this time but you've got to acknowledge that US intervention post 9/11 hasn't been an overwhelming success.
It's perhaps understandable that at least some Iranians are glad to see Khamenei gone, but they may still have to endure an oppressive regime led by another similar character.
You're still conflating "want gone" with "will celebrate large scale bombing by a foreign power". Care to address the distinction?
Sure. I'm old enough to remember the fall of the Shah of Iran in '79. Also the student protests in the late '90's that included dissent about mandatory hijab-wearing and allegations of broad electoral fraud. The regime that has now been eliminated with the chopping off of the snake's head, was an oppressive Islamic (radical Shiite) theocracy. It was also a self-serving economic pyramid-scheme benefitting the oppressors at the expense of the masses. For context google the supremely dead leader's son Mojtaba Khamenei and his £100 million flat in North London.
I don't know how well versed you are with respect to the protests we've seen in the past decade or so, but the issue is economic and religious in nature. Diversity of opinion is welcome here, (I hope) while in Iran, up until 24 hours ago, it would get you executed.
The working class is the core of the anti-regime protesting and for the past ten years they have been viciously attacked and killed for expressing a desire for a whole new system of government. They've been promised help from US Presidents from Carter to the present, and now they are celebrating the fact that they have received the precise kind of help they needed. Not polite jazz hands, not pallets of cash for the Ayatollah, but good ol' 'Merican bombs bursting in air for a people oppressed. Freedom from tyranny.
The distinction is clear. The people are amassed in the streets, celebrating.
Make Iran Great Again.
And what about the parents of the little girls who were bombed at their school? Were those little girls part of the regime?
Mr E's relish at the thought of good ol' 'Merican bombs bursting in air for a people oppressed is abhorrent, to say the least.
The bombs that killed the children may well have been dropped by Israel, but Netanyahu is in cahoots with his buddy Trump, so the distinction is maybe academic.
To use a hypothetical situation - if another country bombed the US and ended up killing Trump, I would celebrate Trump being dead. Certainly, many people in the US would be celebrating in the streets. However, I would still not celebrate the fact that it happened via the US being bombed. I don't think another country would have the right to try to enact regime change in a sovereign nation.
Mr E's relish at the thought of good ol' 'Merican bombs bursting in air for a people oppressed is abhorrent, to say the least.
The bombs that killed the children may well have been dropped by Israel, but Netanyahu is in cahoots with his buddy Trump, so the distinction is maybe academic.
But, most of the bombs are American. Slaughtering school girls at their desks is a hideous crime. Is it really all that much better to kill conscripts who were unfortunate to be on duty when an American bomb fell on them? The proportion of those killed who could conceivably be called "the bad guys" will be very low.
Meanwhile maybe it's those conscripts or military officers killed by bombs who may have been the people who would support a popular uprising against the regime, but now they're dead (or their doubts about the regime have been washed away by the evidence that America is "the great Satan") they won't be there as unarmed civilians take to the streets calling for regime change while the Republican Guard break out their guns.
Mr E's relish at the thought of good ol' 'Merican bombs bursting in air for a people oppressed is abhorrent, to say the least.
The bombs that killed the children may well have been dropped by Israel, but Netanyahu is in cahoots with his buddy Trump, so the distinction is maybe academic.
Did I miss your angst over the killing of 40,000 citizens by this regime? Is it the means, or simply the outcome that upsets you?
Just in— A new Ayatollah has been named. Ayatollah Alireza Arafi
Mr E's relish at the thought of good ol' 'Merican bombs bursting in air for a people oppressed is abhorrent, to say the least.
The bombs that killed the children may well have been dropped by Israel, but Netanyahu is in cahoots with his buddy Trump, so the distinction is maybe academic.
Did I miss your angst over the killing of 40,000 citizens by this regime? Is it the means, or simply the outcome that upsets you?
Just in— A new Ayatollah has been named. Ayatollah Alireza Arafi
Oops. Never mind.
So the murders of the schoolgirls doesn't bother you just because the Iranians killed more?
People are upset about the murder of children who were at school because they were little girls who had nothing to do with the regime. It's not hard to work out.
Mr E's relish at the thought of good ol' 'Merican bombs bursting in air for a people oppressed is abhorrent, to say the least.
The bombs that killed the children may well have been dropped by Israel, but Netanyahu is in cahoots with his buddy Trump, so the distinction is maybe academic.
Did I miss your angst over the killing of 40,000 citizens by this regime? Is it the means, or simply the outcome that upsets you?
Just in— A new Ayatollah has been named. Ayatollah Alireza Arafi
Oops. Never mind.
And, are we forgetting that the revolution in 1979 followed the previous regime killing similar numbers of people for the "crime" of not wanting to live under a totalitarian regime that funnelled oil wealth to America? OK, so that revolution just replaced one dictator with another, but even if the people manage to overthrow the current government would that mean they get a free democracy or another dictator (this time presumably pro-American)? Regime change is a very difficult thing to achieve, and very often it's just to change one regime for another regime ... helping a nation achieve democracy is a totally different endeavour that's arguably impossible by means of bombs and bullets. A gradual restoration of normal international relations in return for gradual increases in political freedom may do that ... something like the plan in place to help Iran return to the international community that Trump ripped up may have done it, ten years down the line we might already have an Iran where people aren't shot in the street for political protest and the power balance between unelected Ayatollahs and the elected government was shifting towards the elected. But, we won't know because Trump reneged on that deal simply because Obama had been involved in negotiating it.
Also, look at how much the Trumpian US and Israel love to boast about how safe and free women and girls are under their regimes compared to in Muslim countries. That's certainly part of why the murders of little girls at school by Trump and Israel is so awful, imo.
Mr E's relish at the thought of good ol' 'Merican bombs bursting in air for a people oppressed is abhorrent, to say the least.
The bombs that killed the children may well have been dropped by Israel, but Netanyahu is in cahoots with his buddy Trump, so the distinction is maybe academic.
Did I miss your angst over the killing of 40,000 citizens by this regime? Is it the means, or simply the outcome that upsets you?
Whataboutery is the last refuge of those without an argument.
No-one (I hope) disputes that the Iranian regime is abhorrent but that's rather the point, it's not usual to devote time and energy to denouncing what nobody is defending, outside of performative outrage to imply that other people are defending it, which is what you seem to be doing here. The 40 000 figure is somewhat speculative, of course, but still many fewer both in raw numbers and in proportion of population, than Israel slaughtered in Gaza. Presumably your "angst" about that will be on display somewhere?
Under the American rule of law, it is only Congress that has the right to declare war, but this was last used in WWII. The Korean War was a "police action" but it did not start to wind down until after Congress started limiting funds. The Vietnam war was authorized under the Gulf of Tonkin resolution. After Vietnam, Congress passed a War Powers Resolution which authorized:
Consultation with Congress before introducing U.S. forces into hostilities.
A report within 48 hours of doing so.
Termination of hostilities within 60 days unless Congress authorizes the action.
Trump is operating under that law. He formally notified eight Congressional leaders of the pending action. He will have to make a full report to Congress by Monday, I think. Congress has sixty days to authorize continued action.
Contrary to what you may have heard about the War Powers Resolution, it does not allow the president to take military action for any reason for 60–90 days without congressional approval so long as the president notifies Congress within 48 hours.
Section 1541(c) of the War Powers Resolution states clearly:
"The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."
Of the three cited authorities, not one indicates a presidential power to take unilateral (without Congress's approval) offensive military action.
The first two authorities allow the president to take offensive military action but only with Congress's express approval (Article I of the Constitution grants Congress the exclusive power to declare war). The third authority allows the president to take defensive military action without Congress's approval in the event of a specific type of national emergency, a sudden unforeseen attack on the United States (happening too quickly for Congress to meet) necessitating immediate action to protect Americans.
It's for this last situation (or for situations in which the president introduces forces into hostilities unlawfully) that the War Powers Resolution provides for the oft-mentioned 48-hour report to Congress (§ 1543) and 60-day (up to 90-day) timeline (§ 1544). If there's an attack in progress on the United States (i.e., currently happening), we expect the president to respond swiftly to neutralize the attack and protect Americans — and then we will hold the president to account.
The Framers of the Constitution agreed at the debates in the federal convention of 1787 that the president should have the "power to repel sudden attacks" but not the power to otherwise introduce forces into hostilities without congressional approval.
The War Powers Resolution does not confer any new authority on the president to take offensive military action without congressional approval—nor could it under our Constitution. It instead checks the president when, as the Framers contemplated, the president introduces our Armed Forces into hostilities to repel a sudden attack.
In short, in the absence of an attack (or imminent attack) on the U.S. by Iran, the War Powers Act does not authorize Trump's current military adventurism.
Will the USA +allies be able to keep the Strait of Hormuz open for commercial shipping?
Almost certainly not, assuming the U.S. restricts itself to an airpower only campaign. Even in a situation where the U.S. has air supremacy in the region, virtually no business is going to be willing to run that risk. If Donald Trump said "trust me, nothing bad will happen if you use the Straits", would you believe him?
Under the American rule of law, it is only Congress that has the right to declare war, but this was last used in WWII. The Korean War was a "police action" but it did not start to wind down until after Congress started limiting funds. The Vietnam war was authorized under the Gulf of Tonkin resolution. After Vietnam, Congress passed a War Powers Resolution which authorized:
Consultation with Congress before introducing U.S. forces into hostilities.
A report within 48 hours of doing so.
Termination of hostilities within 60 days unless Congress authorizes the action.
Trump is operating under that law. He formally notified eight Congressional leaders of the pending action. He will have to make a full report to Congress by Monday, I think. Congress has sixty days to authorize continued action.
Contrary to what you may have heard about the War Powers Resolution, it does not allow the president to take military action for any reason for 60–90 days without congressional approval so long as the president notifies Congress within 48 hours.
Section 1541(c) of the War Powers Resolution states clearly:
"The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."
Of the three cited authorities, not one indicates a presidential power to take unilateral (without Congress's approval) offensive military action.
The first two authorities allow the president to take offensive military action but only with Congress's express approval (Article I of the Constitution grants Congress the exclusive power to declare war). The third authority allows the president to take defensive military action without Congress's approval in the event of a specific type of national emergency, a sudden unforeseen attack on the United States (happening too quickly for Congress to meet) necessitating immediate action to protect Americans.
It's for this last situation (or for situations in which the president introduces forces into hostilities unlawfully) that the War Powers Resolution provides for the oft-mentioned 48-hour report to Congress (§ 1543) and 60-day (up to 90-day) timeline (§ 1544). If there's an attack in progress on the United States (i.e., currently happening), we expect the president to respond swiftly to neutralize the attack and protect Americans — and then we will hold the president to account.
The Framers of the Constitution agreed at the debates in the federal convention of 1787 that the president should have the "power to repel sudden attacks" but not the power to otherwise introduce forces into hostilities without congressional approval.
The War Powers Resolution does not confer any new authority on the president to take offensive military action without congressional approval—nor could it under our Constitution. It instead checks the president when, as the Framers contemplated, the president introduces our Armed Forces into hostilities to repel a sudden attack.
In short, in the absence of an attack (or imminent attack) on the U.S. by Iran, the War Powers Act does not authorize Trump's current military adventurism.
When Trump launched this attack on Iran, he claimed Iran was about to attack the United States. This has not been proven, though. Trump, you may recall, over the past few weeks had been saying Iran had developed an intercontinental missile. Again, unproven.
I grant that I should have mentioned Trump could do this under the clause of imminent attack. Excuse my oversight.
When Trump launched this attack on Iran, he claimed Iran was about to attack the United States. This has not been proven, though. Trump, you may recall, over the past few weeks had been saying Iran had developed an intercontinental missile. Again, unproven.
Trump says a lot of things. He's apparently raiding W's old list of excuses (OMG! WMD!!!). The real problem here is that if Congress is not willing to defend its prerogatives and enforce limits on the president, they functionally don't exist.
The only vague hope I have is that if Trump can actually bang up the regime enough to spark a real revolution, then just maybe he'll stop paying attention and leave the place alone. And just maybe, without outside intervention, Iran will have a shot at having the same chance America did, which is a chance to build their own government from the inside.
And maybe they'll actually pick up where America is clearly failing.
It's a zany dream but one has to try.
One impression I've had from Iranian friends here in the USA is that they don't trust either government: "Theirs" or "ours." And I can't blame them in the slightest for that!
I've also read that "our" guy has deeply underestimated the resiliency of the Iranian government and military establishment. I'm pretty sure they've planned for something like this, and have deep succession lines and standing orders to cover eventualities.
When Trump launched this attack on Iran, he claimed Iran was about to attack the United States. This has not been proven, though. Trump, you may recall, over the past few weeks had been saying Iran had developed an intercontinental missile. Again, unproven.
Trump says a lot of things. He's apparently raiding W's old list of excuses (OMG! WMD!!!). The real problem here is that if Congress is not willing to defend its prerogatives and enforce limits on the president, they functionally don't exist.
Will the USA +allies be able to keep the Strait of Hormuz open for commercial shipping?
Almost certainly not, assuming the U.S. restricts itself to an airpower only campaign. Even in a situation where the U.S. has air supremacy in the region, virtually no business is going to be willing to run that risk. If Donald Trump said "trust me, nothing bad will happen if you use the Straits", would you believe him?
If Donald Trump told me that the world was round, I’d be tempted to become a flat earther.
Under the American rule of law, it is only Congress that has the right to declare war, but this was last used in WWII. The Korean War was a "police action" but it did not start to wind down until after Congress started limiting funds. The Vietnam war was authorized under the Gulf of Tonkin resolution. After Vietnam, Congress passed a War Powers Resolution which authorized:
Consultation with Congress before introducing U.S. forces into hostilities.
A report within 48 hours of doing so.
Termination of hostilities within 60 days unless Congress authorizes the action.
Trump is operating under that law. He formally notified eight Congressional leaders of the pending action. He will have to make a full report to Congress by Monday, I think. Congress has sixty days to authorize continued action.
Short wars are the order of the day.
Should say Afghanistan and Iraq were under resolutions justifying counterterrorism operations worldwide
I imagine he would be using the same justification for Iran.
Whose law? The UN's? Completely ineffective institution. All words. Little action.
Evidence, please.
The repeated condemnation of Israel with Gaza and genocide springs to mind. The UN has not acted to stop it.
The genocides in Rwanda, Sudan, civil war in Syria (action vetoed by Russia and China, climate change stuff and any another local war in the world that was not stopped, presumably.
I believe it is hamstrung for action based on vetos and its constitution.
What I find strange about some of the above comments, is that a western country is supposed to stop terrorism, remove itsleadership AND make it a safe, democratic peaceable place to live.
Really? That's super patronising. You're assuming the country can't manage the aftereffects and create a better system from within.
And you know what? A lot of them haven't been able to. But that says a lot about them. I fail to see why the west has to do EVERYTHING for them.
Whose law? The UN's? Completely ineffective institution. All words. Little action.
Evidence, please.
The repeated condemnation of Israel with Gaza and genocide springs to mind. The UN has not acted to stop it.
The genocides in Rwanda, Sudan, civil war in Syria (action vetoed by Russia and China, climate change stuff and any another local war in the world that was not stopped, presumably.
I believe it is hamstrung for action based on vetos and its constitution.
The UN is trapped between two worlds - the world of Great Powers doing what they like and the world of international law and universal jurisdiction. The theory of the UN is the latter but the makeup of the security council, particularly the permanent 5, is a concession to the former and a dated one at that.
It's clearly failed in many cases, but succeeded in others. We remember the failures because they're marked by large body counts, but forget the (sometimes eventual) successes, like the independence of Timor-Leste.
The problem is that reform of the UN would require the acquiescence of the very powers, like the GOP, that would rather see it vanish entirely.
What I find strange about some of the above comments, is that a western country is supposed to stop terrorism, remove itsleadership AND make it a safe, democratic peaceable place to live.
Really? That's super patronising. You're assuming the country can't manage the aftereffects and create a better system from within.
You mean a country can't manage the after effects of being bombed out and having all its institutions destroyed and then create a better system from within?
The much touted examples are usually Germany and Japan - who were lent massive amounts of expertise and money and allowed to (re)join the imperial core.
And you know what? A lot of them haven't been able to. But that says a lot about them.
Usually after the West has destroyed their state capacity and/or hindered their ability to develop expertise themselves.
What I find strange about some of the above comments, is that a western country is supposed to stop terrorism, remove itsleadership AND make it a safe, democratic peaceable place to live.
Really? That's super patronising. You're assuming the country can't manage the aftereffects and create a better system from within.
Yeah, well Western nations haven't exactly a great record in not being super patronising. The colonial mindset is still strong, that "we're civilised people who need to impose civilisation on those poor ignorant barbarians in other lands (that happen to have mineral resources or other materials we'd really like to have secure and cheap supplies of)". The bit in parentheses is rarely spoken aloud, but always seems to be there. Iran is a case in point; in the 19th Century under the "protection" of Russian and Great Britain, with control contested between the two "Great Powers" (aka thugs and bullies) until 1919 when the Russian Revolution ended Russian influence; in 1909 with the discovery of oil, the Anglo-Persian Oil Company was founded with a monopoly on extraction and sale of oil, a wholly British company effectively nationalised in 1914 when the British government purchased 51% of shares (to secure war time oil supplies), later renamed Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, now known as British Petroleum (or, more commonly, BP); Iran managed to get out from British "protection" in 1921 following a military coup that founded the Pahlavi dynasty that introduced pro-Western modernisations, maintained the oil monopoly of AIOC, but with an oppressive regime; Shah Reza Pahlavi was sympathetic to Germany, and Iran was invaded by British and Russian troops in 1941 to keep Iranian oil out of German reach, Reza was deposed and replaced by his son (also Reza); in 1946 Soviet and British forces withdrew from Iran, and a parliamentary government was formed with Reza Pahlavi as constitutional monarch, which was unstable with 6 governments in 4 years finally stabilising under PM Mosaddeq in 1951; Mosaddeq nationalised AIOC, bringing control and revenue from oil under control of Iran rather than Britain, a failed coup in 1953 lead to the exile of Reza Pahlavi; in August 1953 another coup instigated by the CIA and MI6 succeeded, several leading members of the Mosaddeq government were executed and Reza Pahlavi returned power as an autocratic monarch, that government shared control of oil with international (mainly American) companies who took 50% of income and was Western looking - both of which served US interests for a nation on the border of the Soviet Union - but brutally suppressed opposition and calls for a return to democracy. A series of protests supressed with 1000s killed, and 1000s more in detention and summarily executed, culminated in the 1979 Republican Revolution - though in the long term the Islamic Republic has fallen into a level of totalitarianism no better than that of Shah Pahlavi.
I'm curious how the American public will respond to the death of US military personnel. I've wondered before on other threads what it would take to get the US public not to support their current President, and I would have thought US military deaths might be it. For those based in the US: is there any shift of mood?
Obviously NOT saying that the deaths of Americans are more important than anyone else's. May God have mercy on all those who've died in war and all the grieving families.
Last I heard Hezbollah attached a UK RAF base in Cyprus.
Have the UK stopped sitting on the fence?
We are allowing the US to use bases on UK soil now.
That seems to have happened today. The UK agreed to allow the US to use our air-space - albeit in a 'limited' and 'defensive' way, whatever that means, yesterday.
So my guess would be that Hezbollah are retaliating against that decision rather than the UK deciding to 'come down off the fence' in response to a drone attack on a British base.
As ever, get your facts right before you get on your high horse.
I'm curious how the American public will respond to the death of US military personnel.
There was a statement on a documentary about Vietnam, I can't recall who said it. But it was something like "The US commanders on the ground can report figures like '1000 VietCong are being killed for every American', but the US public don't care about the 1000, they care about the 1". That's probably true for every nation sending troops to a war, and true of every war.
My mum emailed me from Cyprus, where she now lives, to tell me that she is technically living in a war zone now, and is going to get a tin hat and gas mask (she was a child during World War 2). RAF Akrotiri is at the other end of the island, but it's still a bit worrying.
Comments
You put it rather succinctly, I think.
Yes, 81% of 90 million Iranians could math as "plenty." The question is why are so many non-Iranians suffering from the sads about it? It might be wise to keep the powder dry for a couple of weeks, to see what transpires. Yes, a couple of weeks. The Trump era/doctrine includes an overwhelming show of military force and a quick exit. The Maduro operation as a case in point, and then there was the '12-Day War' of last June (Operation Rising Lion). There is no reason to think that this (Operation Epic Fury) should be different. Trump, despite what anyone might think, is forever-war adverse, and always has been.
Not surprisingly, conflicts can be relatively short-lived when the goal isn't money laundering.
You're still conflating "want gone" with "will celebrate large scale bombing by a foreign power". Care to address the distinction?
A few small groups overseas were recorded celebrating immediately after the 9/11 attacks. These events were covered by major news outlets at the time and were understood as limited reactions by specific groups, not by entire populations or nations. They were also condemned by many leaders in those same regions.
No credible evidence supports claims that large groups within the United States celebrated the collapse of the towers. Assertions of widespread domestic celebration have been repeatedly investigated and found to be unsubstantiated.
Notably, Maduro has not been replaced by a leader of the opposition - which presumably you would want if you think he rigged the election. He was instead replaced by his vice-president and Trump has promised to syphon off oil funds to an account under his personal control (not, say, democratic Venezuelan control). I am not clear how ordinary Venazuelans are now better off, or have more democratic control of their government ?
By extension, if Trump does the same thing in Iran - the people will have endured the bombing and not ended up with a less repressive regime.
Once he's sorted out Iran, of course - so probably not until next weekend.
Banner, Herrick, Telic...'Epic Fury'. FFS.
Sure. I'm old enough to remember the fall of the Shah of Iran in '79. Also the student protests in the late '90's that included dissent about mandatory hijab-wearing and allegations of broad electoral fraud. The regime that has now been eliminated with the chopping off of the snake's head, was an oppressive Islamic (radical Shiite) theocracy. It was also a self-serving economic pyramid-scheme benefitting the oppressors at the expense of the masses. For context google the supremely dead leader's son Mojtaba Khamenei and his £100 million flat in North London.
I don't know how well versed you are with respect to the protests we've seen in the past decade or so, but the issue is economic and religious in nature. Diversity of opinion is welcome here, (I hope) while in Iran, up until 24 hours ago, it would get you executed.
The working class is the core of the anti-regime protesting and for the past ten years they have been viciously attacked and killed for expressing a desire for a whole new system of government. They've been promised help from US Presidents from Carter to the present, and now they are celebrating the fact that they have received the precise kind of help they needed. Not polite jazz hands, not pallets of cash for the Ayatollah, but good ol' 'Merican bombs bursting in air for a people oppressed. Freedom from tyranny.
The distinction is clear. The people are amassed in the streets, celebrating.
Make Iran Great Again.
It remains to be seen whether the regime has been eliminated, and whether it was a serpent’s head or a Hydra’s head.
Fair enough. However it’s also fair to say that the IRGC has its hands rather full right now. Please do let me know who emerges in the Ayatollah’s place. Also, if you don’t mind disclosing his location I’ll pass that info along to the USS Abraham Lincoln. On to the next one.
Most of the people of Afghanistan were happy to see the Taliban chased out of Kabul, and I doubt anyone much mourns Saddam Hussein, but that doesn't mean that the Allied invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were on balance good ideas.
Traditional Just War theory has seven distinct criteria, and you have to meet all of them for a war to be just. Saying that the Iranian population are happy at the assault meets one of the criteria. You still need to tick off the other six.
(The traditional criteria, by the way, are:
Just cause;
Final resort;
Legitimate authority;
Just intention (this doesn't only mean you mean well; it also means you have well-defined war aims);
Just means;
Reasonable prospect of success;
The benefits outweigh the harms.)
Killing the leader of the other side is not in itself a well-defined just intention. Effecting regime change may be, but it is at minimum not clear that killing Khameini is part of a well-defined plan with a reasonable prospect of success.
The next potential disaster you mean?
Iraq and Afghanistan don't add up to a good track record.
I'd be delighted if a lovely and cuddly regime emerges to replace the current repressive regime in Iran. I'd be the first to congratulate you.
Thing is, we are dealing with Real Life and Real Life is messy.
I'm old enough to remember the 1979 revolution and was rather pleased about it at the time. I quickly realised that the 'revolution eats its children.'
I hope that doesn't happen this time but you've got to acknowledge that US intervention post 9/11 hasn't been an overwhelming success.
Let's deal with Real Life not MAGA delusions.
However, Trump says that Iran is willing to talk:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/mar/01/trump-iran-strikes-interview-comments
And what about the parents of the little girls who were bombed at their school? Were those little girls part of the regime?
The bombs that killed the children may well have been dropped by Israel, but Netanyahu is in cahoots with his buddy Trump, so the distinction is maybe academic.
Meanwhile maybe it's those conscripts or military officers killed by bombs who may have been the people who would support a popular uprising against the regime, but now they're dead (or their doubts about the regime have been washed away by the evidence that America is "the great Satan") they won't be there as unarmed civilians take to the streets calling for regime change while the Republican Guard break out their guns.
Did I miss your angst over the killing of 40,000 citizens by this regime? Is it the means, or simply the outcome that upsets you?
Just in— A new Ayatollah has been named. Ayatollah Alireza Arafi
Oops. Never mind.
So the murders of the schoolgirls doesn't bother you just because the Iranians killed more?
People are upset about the murder of children who were at school because they were little girls who had nothing to do with the regime. It's not hard to work out.
Whataboutery is the last refuge of those without an argument.
No-one (I hope) disputes that the Iranian regime is abhorrent but that's rather the point, it's not usual to devote time and energy to denouncing what nobody is defending, outside of performative outrage to imply that other people are defending it, which is what you seem to be doing here. The 40 000 figure is somewhat speculative, of course, but still many fewer both in raw numbers and in proportion of population, than Israel slaughtered in Gaza. Presumably your "angst" about that will be on display somewhere?
This is a frequent misrepresentation of the War Powers Act. I'll outsource the analysis to Former Congressman Justin Amash:
In short, in the absence of an attack (or imminent attack) on the U.S. by Iran, the War Powers Act does not authorize Trump's current military adventurism.
Almost certainly not, assuming the U.S. restricts itself to an airpower only campaign. Even in a situation where the U.S. has air supremacy in the region, virtually no business is going to be willing to run that risk. If Donald Trump said "trust me, nothing bad will happen if you use the Straits", would you believe him?
When Trump launched this attack on Iran, he claimed Iran was about to attack the United States. This has not been proven, though. Trump, you may recall, over the past few weeks had been saying Iran had developed an intercontinental missile. Again, unproven.
I grant that I should have mentioned Trump could do this under the clause of imminent attack. Excuse my oversight.
Trump says a lot of things. He's apparently raiding W's old list of excuses (OMG! WMD!!!). The real problem here is that if Congress is not willing to defend its prerogatives and enforce limits on the president, they functionally don't exist.
I will note that even though W claimed Iraq was an immediate threat he still took the trouble of getting Congressional authorization for the attack.
And maybe they'll actually pick up where America is clearly failing.
It's a zany dream but one has to try.
One impression I've had from Iranian friends here in the USA is that they don't trust either government: "Theirs" or "ours." And I can't blame them in the slightest for that!
I've also read that "our" guy has deeply underestimated the resiliency of the Iranian government and military establishment. I'm pretty sure they've planned for something like this, and have deep succession lines and standing orders to cover eventualities.
We shall see.
I am not arguing the excuses are true, I am just saying these are his "reasons."
If Donald Trump told me that the world was round, I’d be tempted to become a flat earther.
I imagine he would be using the same justification for Iran.
The repeated condemnation of Israel with Gaza and genocide springs to mind. The UN has not acted to stop it.
The genocides in Rwanda, Sudan, civil war in Syria (action vetoed by Russia and China, climate change stuff and any another local war in the world that was not stopped, presumably.
I believe it is hamstrung for action based on vetos and its constitution.
That is a facile question based on the context.
Really? That's super patronising. You're assuming the country can't manage the aftereffects and create a better system from within.
And you know what? A lot of them haven't been able to. But that says a lot about them. I fail to see why the west has to do EVERYTHING for them.
Have the UK stopped sitting on the fence?
The UN is trapped between two worlds - the world of Great Powers doing what they like and the world of international law and universal jurisdiction. The theory of the UN is the latter but the makeup of the security council, particularly the permanent 5, is a concession to the former and a dated one at that.
It's clearly failed in many cases, but succeeded in others. We remember the failures because they're marked by large body counts, but forget the (sometimes eventual) successes, like the independence of Timor-Leste.
The problem is that reform of the UN would require the acquiescence of the very powers, like the GOP, that would rather see it vanish entirely.
You mean a country can't manage the after effects of being bombed out and having all its institutions destroyed and then create a better system from within?
The much touted examples are usually Germany and Japan - who were lent massive amounts of expertise and money and allowed to (re)join the imperial core.
Usually after the West has destroyed their state capacity and/or hindered their ability to develop expertise themselves.
This is ahistorical crap.
Obviously NOT saying that the deaths of Americans are more important than anyone else's. May God have mercy on all those who've died in war and all the grieving families.
We are allowing the US to use bases on UK soil now.
That seems to have happened today. The UK agreed to allow the US to use our air-space - albeit in a 'limited' and 'defensive' way, whatever that means, yesterday.
So my guess would be that Hezbollah are retaliating against that decision rather than the UK deciding to 'come down off the fence' in response to a drone attack on a British base.
As ever, get your facts right before you get on your high horse.
Doublethink, Admin