Israel did not have a realistic plan for regime change when it attacked Iran, multiple Israeli security sources have said, with expectations that airstrikes could lead to a popular uprising having been driven by “wishful thinking” rather than hard intelligence.
Iran has survived nearly two weeks of bombing raids and the assassination of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and Trump is publicly contemplating ending the increasingly costly war.
If Iran’s new leadership keeps its grip on power, the long-term measure of the success of the conflict may hang on the fate of 440kg of enriched uranium which was buried under a mountain by US strikes last June, former and serving Israeli defence and intelligence sources said. Enough for more than 10 nuclear warheads, Iran could use it to hasten the construction of a weapon if the material remains in the country.
Oh yes, the highly enriched uranium that they only started stockpiling after Trump threw away the deal Obama made with them. The same uranium they offered to give back during the talks, Kushner and Wickoff didn’t bring a nuclear specialist in for . And now because of these rich assholes thinking they can do whatever they hell they want a ton of innocent people are gonna die.
Until the poorly behaving wealthy see real consequences in real life for their actions, they will never stop.
Shame and ridicule is useless. They are immune.
True. But the IRGc slaughtered 40,000+ innocent civilians from their own Country.
Justifiable interventional response
EDIT: Yes, there are humanitarian and international law violations occurring in many countries. I oppose those as well. However, I’m not the one making decisions about when or where interventions occur, nor am I a commander-in-chief directing military action.
The bottom line is that many people agree the IRGC are a leading global sponsor of terrorism and have committed serious humanitarian crimes against their own people and others. Allowing such a regime to acquire nuclear weapons is something the international community should take seriously. This isn’t Iraq.
If nothing is done and, in ten years, they possess large numbers of nuclear-capable warheads with global reach, people will inevitably ask why the world stood by and allowed it to happen. By that point, the options available to stop them would be far more dangerous and destabilizing than addressing the threat now. Diplomacy has been attempted for decades, IRGC have demonstrated it won’t agree to anything preventing acquisition of Nuclear capable weapons.
Oof that is some pretty shitty reasoning. The US, just with the war on drugs for instance. The peak was over one hundred thousand people dead in 2023 alone. Every single death is preventable, but the US continues to choose to attack the poor and minorities instead of engaging in harm reduction.
Then consider deaths to gun violence. We have lost 1.5 million citizens in the last 30 years. More than every single US soldier lost in every single war we have fought.
Should other nations use this as a pretext to invade the U$ to free its oppressed population?
You’re comparing social crises to state-directed mass killing. Those aren’t equivalent under international law or humanitarian doctrine. The threshold people talk about for intervention is typically genocide, ethnic cleansing, or large-scale state violence against civilians.
Social problems like drug overdoses and gun violence are not the same as a government slaughtering civilians. Conflating the two is a false equivalence.
The war on drugs is the very definition of large scale state directed killing. Need I remind you that the real reason the War on Drugs started was to go after minorities. Over a million families destroyed by the war on drugs but not a big deal.
Not only that, but the CIA created the crack epidemic and US drug manufacturers created the opioid epidemic.
Harmful policy and deliberate mass killing are not the same thing.
The War on Drugs has caused real damage, but comparing incarceration and social harm to governments intentionally slaughtering civilians is exactly the kind of false equivalence that makes serious discussions impossible.
I am thinking you are ignorant of history.
https://lawrepository.ualr.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2106&context=lawreview
The War on Drugs was a purposeful attack on minorities. You can’t whitewash the truth away. We attacked our fellow citizens to appease racists.
The results speak for themselves. Millions of lives lost and you hand waiving it away. You don’t get to do this. You don’t get to ignore the militarization and invasion of our police forces. You don’t get to decide that these people don’t matter.
The War on Drugs absolutely caused serious harm and disproportionately impacted minority communities. That’s widely documented. But acknowledging that doesn’t make it equivalent to governments intentionally killing civilians. Harmful policy and discriminatory enforcement are not the same thing as deliberate mass slaughter. Conflating those two things is exactly the kind of false equivalence that derails serious discussion.
Are you actually arguing that the War on Drugs is equivalent to governments intentionally slaughtering their own civilians?
Because acknowledging that the policy caused harm and was discriminatory doesn’t make it the same category of wrongdoing as deliberate mass killing.
You know, every case you named isn’t slaughtering civilian protestors in the streets, but societal and statistic issues instead of deliberate action?
These are problems purposely created by the government. The War on Drugs was literally a way to go after minorites. The government defunded research into gun violence.
Trying to normalize this loss of life shows how depraved you are.
Those are serious domestic policy failures and they absolutely deserve criticism. But they’re still not the same thing as a government deliberately carrying out mass violence against civilians or supporting armed groups abroad.
Recognizing that distinction isn’t “normalizing” loss of life, it’s acknowledging that different problems require different responses.
Not the same thing even when the government is purposely doing it like the War on Drugs. Arming police like the military and attacking people in their homes. Clearly we have different ideas of what is mass violence. It is okay for our government to do it, but not theirs.
You need to understand both of these things are bad. they aren’t mutually exclusive.
They are when you are trying to use a moral justification for bombing people.
No. You being unable to see the difference between gunning down someone and for example speeding is pretty disturbing.
deleted by creator
So the US government can actively kill people and destroys millions of families and your are fine with it? What about the 4000+ children that died by firearms this last year. It is now the number one killer of children.
Do you know how many children were killed in Iran by guns before the US showed up!? Fucking zero.
Millions of Americans dead and you could give a shit. Stop pretending you care about Iranians.
You’re putting words in people’s mouths. No one said they’re “fine with” deaths in the U.S. Those are serious issues and they absolutely deserve attention and policy solutions.
The point being made was simply that domestic social problems and state-directed violence or terrorism are different categories under international law. Acknowledging that distinction doesn’t mean someone doesn’t care about both.
Both can be bad at the same time. Recognizing that isn’t controversial.
I am making an argument for how ridiculous it is to use loss of life an an excuse to kill more people and that we do not have any moral high ground here.
No. But you are just being accusatory and willfully misunderstanding my point.
I think it is wrong that Iran cracked down and probably killed tens of thousand of protestors.
That does not make justification for a bombing.
I am sure you are aware of several US and western sponsored regime changes in Iran leading to a backlash and the current conservatard leadership.
I am having a hard time believing excusing this bombing and possible invasion as justified because Iran killed civilians.
Considering we spent 20 years and trillions of dollars to take Afghanistan away from and then give it right back to the Taliban what do you think we are trying to accomplish in Iran!?
You know who else just killed ten times this many people. Russia. Why are we going after the most powerful Muslim country in the world.
I think we know why and it is disgusting.
So when are you shipping off to Sudan? If you’re so keen on international intervention of domestic killing, Sudan is in much worse shape than Iran.
I didn’t choose the military as my line of work. If I had and was sent somewhere to intervene, I would accept that responsibility.
I support intervention when humanitarian law is being severely violated, but I don’t make the decisions on where those interventions happen.
I chose healthcare instead, and I help Canadians every day.
Very believable and not fake at all.
Can we even trust those numbers at this point?
Yes, there is a reason the Iranians didn’t get their Internet privileges since January. If it wasn’t as bad as the world thought you might not restrict information access so badly.
Where are the millions of Iranian refugees then? They’re not caged prisoners like the Gazans are. You don’t kill that many people in a short time and not have people trying to flee en mass. If it were true then Iran would be falling apart in a civil war.
Fuck off with these obvious lies. Blood thirsty fuckers.
Because there is war there are millions of Iranian refugees.
News/information spread was suppressed and the Iranian regime routinely crushes protests violently. Hence I would guess the fallout was somewhat limited. Also the 40 day period is up. So protests would have likely reignited at the point of the invasion.
Just because facts don’t fit your world view doesn’t mean other people are bloodthirsty for saying that the Iranian regime had many thousands killed in the streets.