An end to Iran?

[Harrison_Danneskjold]

I’m splitting this thread off from the Origins of the Kashmir Conflict, where I’d been bitching about Trump’s apparent inability or unwillingness to deal with Iran.

/t/28421

In the last couple of days Israel has been stomping on Iran pretty thoroughly, and as of right now I haven’t heard any indication that they intend to stop soon.  I’m quite pleased with this.  I said some unkind things in that thread about Trump’s foreign policy in his second term which I’m not sure were warranted now.

 

Could this be the beginning of the richly-deserved end of Iran?

[DavidOdden]

1: Unkind statements about Trump’s past (non)-behavior are fully warranted. If anything has actually changes for the better w.r.t. his behavior (TAC: Trump Always Changes), it would be appropriate to acknowledge that momentary change. It’s not Trump who deserves credit.

2: His current stance – agreeing with Putin that “this war in Israel-Iran should end” is hardly a ringing endorsement of Israel’s actions. The US policy remains “talk over action”.

3: You can always ask “Is it possible that…” when it comes to the man-made.

4: “End Iran” is a vague metaphor. Literally, no, this clearly is not the end to Iran. It is highly unlikely that it is even the end to the mullah regime. The end will not come just from Israel’s air attack, and Israel is not going to invade en mass, but in an unlikely pipe-dream universe, the attacks might contribute to long-standing minority opposition to the existing government. The goal should be to end the Islamic Republic, not Iran.

5: The present evidence indicates that the goal of the attacks is to end Iran’s ability to manufacture nuclear weapons. The scope of the present incursion cannot be accurately estimated this soon, recall that there have been multiple brief attacks against Iran that did not end Iran.

6: The beginning of the end of Iran was around July 1981, the end is coming slowly. We don’t care about the beginning of the end, we only care about the end. Of the Islamic Republic.

[Harrison_Danneskjold]

On 6/14/2025 at 8:58 PM, DavidOdden said:

1: Unkind statements about Trump’s past (non)-behavior are fully warranted. If anything has actually changes for the better w.r.t. his behavior (TAC: Trump Always Changes), it would be appropriate to acknowledge that momentary change. It’s not Trump who deserves credit.

This makes no sense to me.

If he doesn’t get credit when I see him doing right then how can he be given blame when I see him doing wrong?  I was right there with you, badmouthing his treatment of Iran a week ago - and from everything we knew a week ago, his treatment of Iran was objectively shit.  We know better now, though, don’t we?

I don’t know.  Maybe you’d like to rephrase or elaborate slightly because as it currently stands this statement simply baffles me.

On 6/14/2025 at 8:58 PM, DavidOdden said:

3: You can always ask “Is it possible that…” when it comes to the man-made.

Also not sure what you mean.

 

On 6/14/2025 at 8:58 PM, DavidOdden said:

2: His current stance – agreeing with Putin that “this war in Israel-Iran should end” is hardly a ringing endorsement of Israel’s actions. The US policy remains “talk over action”.

IDK.  He’s made posts on his dumb social network to the effect of:

“I gave Iran 60 days to negotiate.  This is day 61.  Some of the people I was negotiating with are dead now.  The survivors should sign a deal with me while there are any survivors left.”

 

Now, this is all talk (if you were to argue that it remains “talk over action” I’d have a difficult time disproving specifically that) and Israel is doing all of the heavy lifting for us, here.  Still, it seems to be the right kind of talk, and within the context of Iranian armaments and military leaders being converted into so much red confetti.

 

I dunno.  I’m just happy to see the Iranian threat being vaporized.

 

On 6/14/2025 at 8:58 PM, DavidOdden said:

4: “End Iran” is a vague metaphor. Literally, no, this clearly is not the end to Iran. It is highly unlikely that it is even the end to the mullah regime. The end will not come just from Israel’s air attack, and Israel is not going to invade en mass, but in an unlikely pipe-dream universe, the attacks might contribute to long-standing minority opposition to the existing government. The goal should be to end the Islamic Republic, not Iran.

I suppose so.  What I mean is an end to the Islamic Republic.

 

Would Israel have to invade en masse, though?  What happens if they simply wipe out the entire command structure?  Do you think the Iranians would eventually fill all of those positions with new Islamists?

 

This is not a real argument (I really don’t know the answers to those last questions) but since the number of Islamists in Iran is finite, theoretically assassinating enough of them in a row should have some sort of effect.  Right?

 

Excellent father’s day gift, by the way, if he can destroy the Islamic Republic.  That’s some very amusing timing.

 

“For this father’s day, I bring you news that the Ayatollah is dead and there is finally peace in the middle East”.

[stansfield123]

On 6/14/2025 at 8:58 PM, DavidOdden said:

His current stance – agreeing with Putin that “this war in Israel-Iran should end” is hardly a ringing endorsement of Israel’s actions. The US policy remains “talk over action”.

Russia is a nuclear power. That doesn’t just mean the ability to blow up the world, it also means the ability to proliferate nuclear weapons.

Finding common cause with Putin, on the subject of Iran, is a must. The only other alternatives are:

1. The US commits to an invasion/occupation force that guarantees regime change in Iran. This would be a really bad idea even if it was politically feasible. Which it isn’t. Congress won’t declare war on Iran, so Trump can’t invade Iran. Period.

2. Russia gives Iran nukes. It’s this scenario that talks with Putin are aimed to prevent. The “agreement” is: “We limit this operation to destroying Iran’s nuclear ambitions … and Russia doesn’t sabotage that effort by handing them nukes straight up”.

If you don’t like that agreement, what are you suggesting be done instead? Let them do it? Let them arm Iran with nukes?

 

On 6/14/2025 at 2:44 AM, Harrison Danneskjold said:

Could this be the beginning of the richly-deserved end of Iran?

Clearly, the Israelis are trying to do more than just go after nuclear tech, because they are targeting the leadership of the IRGC.

However, the Revolutionary Guard is a 125,000 strong group of pretty carefully selected fanatics. They won’t turn against the Islamic Republic just because their leaders are dead. They already have new leaders. Assassinations can only reduce their capability to operate beyond Iran, they can’t defeat them.

The only path towards regime change in Iran is to create a force capable of defeating them. Where is that force? Who are the Israelis, or the Americans for that matter, counting on to do that for them? I’ve seen nothing in the news that answers that question.

There obviously are networks within Iran capable of supporting Israeli intelligence operations. But an intelligence operation can’t defeat an army. Nor can civilian protesters. Only another army can defeat an army. And I don’t see where that army could possibly come from.

We would need a regional power willing to send in a fighting force. Maybe if you guys had treated the Saudis more nicely, during the Biden admin, they would be willing to do it. But now, no way. They know how brittle US support is. They can’t count on it for more than 4 years at a time, and a war in Iran could easily outlast Trump.

There are plenty of fighters in Syria, of course. Do you wanna arm them well enough to win in Iran? I don’t think that’s a great idea.

[Jon_C]

On 6/15/2025 at 5:01 AM, stansfield123 said:

Maybe if you guys had treated the Saudis more nicely, during the Biden admin,

Again you pretend not to know the story.  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamal_Khashoggi

 

On 6/15/2025 at 4:34 AM, stansfield123 said:

Congress won’t declare war on Iran, so Trump can’t invade Iran.

The current congress would do almost anything trump asks (as they currently try to raise the debt ceiling by 5 trillion dollars) but setting that aside it isn’t true that trump can’t invade without their approval. The Korean War was fought without a formal declaration of war, for example. Trump could claim that regime change in Iran would be done as part of a limited US military operation, even though that would be a transparent lie, and few if any congressional republicans would argue about it and his Supreme Court (if it got to them) wouldn’t either. 

 

On 6/15/2025 at 4:34 AM, stansfield123 said:

If you don’t like that agreement, what are you suggesting be done instead? Let them do it? Let them arm Iran with nukes?

You’re right, we should never do anything Russia doesn’t like because they could give nukes to Iran. Better withdraw from Ukraine because Russia could give nukes to Iran. Better dissolve NATO because Russia could give nukes to Iran. 

Imagine actually advocating for the US to appease a blackmailer. 

Also, do you think Russia can just hand them Nukes? Like in a briefcase? There’s a reason they were caught trying to get them to Cuba and chickened out. 

 

On 6/15/2025 at 5:01 AM, stansfield123 said:

Only another army can defeat an army

Which army defeated the soviet regime and caused its collapse? 

 

Another minor point - if we have the Saudis do most of the work overthrowing Iran, then they get a say in what the new regime looks like. Is replacing a Shia theocracy with a Sunni one worth our time? 

[DavidOdden]

A stopped clock is right twice a day. You have yet to see Trump do something right on this front, wait until he takes a definitive positive action. That is when some degree of praise might be warranted.

“Could it be that…” is a cognitively useless prefix that avoids taking intellectual responsibility. State your reasons for believing that Israel will, in this current action, bring an end to The Islamic Republic. Then we can evaluate your argument.

Israel is not doing the heavy lifting for us, it is doing the heavy lifting for its own sake. The US is not doing any lifting for Israel. I consider it to be a coin toss whether the government of Israel will successfully neutralize Iran’s bomb-making capacity (or will they dial it back: only history will tell, after the documents are declassified in 100 years). It is improbable but conceptually possible that they will delete the current regime, mainly because they are not total idiots and they know that a Libya / Somalia / Haiti / Congo / Afghanistan-style governmental vacuum will make Isrel’s security even more tenuous. I don’t know what you mean by their “command structure”, that sounds like the senior officers of the military, their version of the Joint Chiefs. Of course they will just replace the officers who were killed. Case in point, Mohammed Bagheri was killed on Friday, same day he will replaced with Abdolrahim Mousavi.

If your house suffers from a plague of fleas carried by rats, you don’t just drown the house in insecticide, to eliminate the cause which is the rats and especially whatever attracts the rats. As an exercise, I suggest trying to say exactly who runs Iran, give a real answer rather than some un-researched flip answer like “the mullahs” or “Khameini”. The government of Iran is resilient because it is an intertwined pile of spaghetti piled into multiple councils – the Assembly of Experts, the Guardian Council, the Expediency Discernment Council, the President and his entourage, the Supreme Leader, not to mention the low-level peons in the Islamic Consultative Assembly (the legislature). Israel probably has a list of names and addresses. The weakest single-body link in that structure is indeed Khameini (an effective assassination would eliminate his son and heir-apparent). So I suggest laying out the details of your plan, assuming someone manages to nuke the two of them.

[Harrison_Danneskjold]

9 hours ago, DavidOdden said:

“Could it be that…” is a cognitively useless prefix that avoids taking intellectual responsibility. State your reasons for believing that Israel will, in this current action, bring an end to The Islamic Republic. Then we can evaluate your argument.

I genuinely don’t know, though.  I’m hopeful (the Israelis do seem to get very good results once they commit themselves to a course of action) but hope is not an argument, and as far as any definite outcomes of this war I’m not trying to take intellectual responsibility for anything.  If I find myself committed to a position on that I’ll take it as a sign that I’m no longer thinking clearly about the subject at hand, log off and forget about the whole thing for a few weeks, until I’m ready to approach it again with fresh eyes.

Actually, I am confident that they’d eventually break if Israel started carpet-bombing Tehran.  But I’m assuming that the Israelis aren’t willing to do that and I’m curious as to whether it’s strictly necessary.

 

Iran should end.  I can state my reasons for that belief while hopping on one foot.  Will it end right now, because of this?  Again, all I feel confident in stating is that I hope so.

 

9 hours ago, DavidOdden said:

Israel is not doing the heavy lifting for us, it is doing the heavy lifting for its own sake.

I don’t mean that it’s a selfless action, on their part; just that we’re not really helping them, despite the fact that we clearly share national interests in seeing Iran go up in flames. 

9 hours ago, DavidOdden said:

I don’t know what you mean by their “command structure”, that sounds like the senior officers of the military, their version of the Joint Chiefs.

Exactly that.

9 hours ago, DavidOdden said:

The weakest single-body link in that structure is indeed Khameini (an effective assassination would eliminate his son and heir-apparent). So I suggest laying out the details of your plan, assuming someone manages to nuke the two of them.

I don’t have a plan.  My plan would be to carpet-bomb Tehran, blow up the holiest Mosque in the country, bring their entire economy to a full halt, salt the Earth so that crops could never grow there again and see if they were ready to surrender of if they wanted more.  It doesn’t look like anyone’s going to enact anything similar to my plan, but maybe they don’t need to.  Do they?

Maybe they do, since members of Iran’s command structure are being replaced as rapidly as Israel can assassinate them.  Maybe nothing short of decimation (in the old sense of the word; a loss of ten percent) will be enough to achieve our goals.  Or maybe the will to fight in Iran is such that a tricimation or bicimation is required.

 

17 hours ago, stansfield123 said:

Russia is a nuclear power. That doesn’t just mean the ability to blow up the world, it also means the ability to proliferate nuclear weapons.

Finding common cause with Putin, on the subject of Iran, is a must. The only other alternatives are:

1. The US commits to an invasion/occupation force that guarantees regime change in Iran. This would be a really bad idea even if it was politically feasible. Which it isn’t. Congress won’t declare war on Iran, so Trump can’t invade Iran. Period.

2. Russia gives Iran nukes. It’s this scenario that talks with Putin are aimed to prevent. The “agreement” is: “We limit this operation to destroying Iran’s nuclear ambitions … and Russia doesn’t sabotage that effort by handing them nukes straight up”.

If you don’t like that agreement, what are you suggesting be done instead? Let them do it? Let them arm Iran with nukes?

This is actually one of the primary reasons why I lump Russia into the same group of countries as Iran.

 

It’s not because of their domestic policies or laws (which I know very little about); it’s simply because they’re an unfriendly nuclear power.  If they can give nukes to Iran then they can give nukes to any other petty tyrant or terrorist cell with anti-American sentiments, and that’s not acceptable.  The fact that you’re concerned about what they might do with their nukes (and you’re not wrong to be, either; it is a perfectly legitimate concern) is precisely why we can’t keep pussyfooting around Putin forever.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUP1H1gmVOs

The “we can’t act against him because he’s too powerful” argument only works if you’re refusing to consider its long-range implications.  He’s not going to become weaker by remaining in power for longer; he only stands to gain from procrastination and we only stand to lose.

 

Sooner or later that particular cancer has got to be dealt with.

 

I don’t want to go on too long about Putin.  He’s distressing and sad to think about, and I’d prefer to dwell upon the positive vibes of Iran having finally been dealt with.  But sooner or later he’s got to go, too.

 

17 hours ago, stansfield123 said:

There are plenty of fighters in Syria, of course. Do you wanna arm them well enough to win in Iran? I don’t think that’s a great idea.

Oh, Hell no.  I’d like to think that’s one lesson we all should have learned by now.  One of the other benefits of glassing a place is that you don’t have to give one single bullet to your future enemies.

 

13 hours ago, Jon C said:

You’re right, we should never do anything Russia doesn’t like because they could give nukes to Iran. Better withdraw from Ukraine because Russia could give nukes to Iran. Better dissolve NATO because Russia could give nukes to Iran. 

Imagine actually advocating for the US to appease a blackmailer. 

Exactly.

 

And when you give a blackmailer what he wants, he doesn’t go away; he discovers that there are more things that he wants from you.  Things he didn’t even know that he wanted until he realized how cheaply and easily he could make you give them up.

 

There is a very good reason why one must never negotiate with terrorists.

[whYNOT]

I say this to counter fresh condemnations of Israel in other sites. This Iran war began Oct 7; despite a common, propagandized notionality that Hamas and Hezbolla (their almost simultaneous assaults, tellingly quite overlooked by media, in their focused ‘concern for Gaza’), and the Houthis - and Tehran - were all disconnected or independent actors - in “solidarity” with Gaza. I.e. An unorchestrated  “resistance” movement.

But I’d claim that if removed from the equation Iran’s nuclear ambitions, its defaults and delays and the argument around Iranian intentions with nukes – and the above “proxy” attacks largely directed and backed by Tehran would alone have provided ample just cause for Israel’s offensive strikes at Iran. Re-introduce that danger and their casus belli against “the principal” nation is far exceeded. 

A good discussion on the legalities of war.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxkVDyA31MI

 

 

[DavidOdden]

On Sept. 21 2001, Bush II demanded that the Taliban government hand over Bin Laden and his henchmen. That did not happen, so “steps were taken” – bombs dropped – on Oct. 7. Kabul fell on Nov. 12. This is an instance of a meaningful ultimatum and an actual (albeit futile) delivery. He also issued an ultimatum to Saddam Hussein on March 17, 2003, and the overt invasion started 3 days later (covert preparations preceded significantly). On July 26, 1945 we also delivered an ultimatum to Japan, and delivered a few weeks later. The threat against Japan was brief and short on details of implementation but clear in gravity – “The alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction”.

Here’s a history question: when in the past 120 years has the US issued clear ultimata and delivered on the threat? We are now in the “where’s the beef?” phase of Trump’s “threat” that Iran has 60 days to “make a deal” (wtf does that even mean?). Since the US Embassy in Tel Aviv just suffered collateral-damage flesh wounds, this would be an opportunity for Trump to Man Up, OTOH tomorrow is TACO Tuesday. Unlike the Potsdam ultimatum, there is no clear “or else”, and “make a deal” is not a meaningful demand. (Seriously? “Cause it to come about that these parties agree to terms!”. A demand to surrender is specific and doable).

[stansfield123]

On 6/15/2025 at 10:40 PM, Harrison Danneskjold said:

The “we can’t act against him because he’s too powerful” argument

Russia is impossible to defeat militarily, because they have a nuclear arsenal with which they can annihilate any attacker. That’s not an argument, that’s a statement of fact.

Quote

This is actually one of the primary reasons why I lump Russia into the same group of countries as Iran.

They don’t belong in the same category, because there’s a fundamental difference between them:

Iran is a temporary nuisance which can be defeated whenever one or several western countries decide that the costs outweigh the benefits. Russia is the exact opposite of that. Russia is invulnerable. It’s a monolith. You cannot move it, you can only convince it to move on its own.

We don’t need to indefinitely co-exist with Iran on this Earth. But we do need to indefinitely co-exist with Russia. Our attitude towards Russia should reflect that fact.

 

 

 

On 6/16/2025 at 4:28 PM, DavidOdden said:

On Sept. 21 2001, Bush II demanded that the Taliban government hand over Bin Laden and his henchmen. That did not happen, so “steps were taken” – bombs dropped – on Oct. 7. Kabul fell on Nov. 12. This is an instance of a meaningful ultimatum and an actual (albeit futile) delivery. He also issued an ultimatum to Saddam Hussein on March 17, 2003, and the overt invasion started 3 days later (covert preparations preceded significantly). On July 26, 1945 we also delivered an ultimatum to Japan, and delivered a few weeks later. The threat against Japan was brief and short on details of implementation but clear in gravity – “The alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction”.

Here’s a history question: when in the past 120 years has the US issued clear ultimata and delivered on the threat? We are now in the “where’s the beef?” phase of Trump’s “threat” that Iran has 60 days to “make a deal” (wtf does that even mean?). Since the US Embassy in Tel Aviv just suffered collateral-damage flesh wounds, this would be an opportunity for Trump to Man Up, OTOH tomorrow is TACO Tuesday. Unlike the Potsdam ultimatum, there is no clear “or else”, and “make a deal” is not a meaningful demand. (Seriously? “Cause it to come about that these parties agree to terms!”. A demand to surrender is specific and doable).

In every example you gave, the President had bipartisan political support for the actions he took.

In this case, Trump does not have such support for going to war with Iran. He doesn’t even have a simple majority backing him, members of his own party are introducing stupid anti-war resolutions. Demanding the surrender of Iran isn’t on the table, because enforcing that demand isn’t on the table. Cannot be done. Iran has access to CNN. They know it would be an empty threat.

What is on the table is demanding a deal limited to the subject of nuclear weapons. Such a demand can be enforced, because a. supplying Israel does have congressional support, and b. dropping a few bunker busters on targets Israel asked for help with is within his authority without congressional support.

[Jon_C]

On 6/18/2025 at 7:43 AM, stansfield123 said:

Russia is impossible to defeat militarily, because they have a nuclear arsenal with which they can annihilate any attacker. That’s not an argument, that’s a statement of fact.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet–Afghan_War It’s honestly starting to feel like you’re actively trying to be wrong just to check who is paying attention. 

On 6/18/2025 at 7:43 AM, stansfield123 said:

Iran is a temporary nuisance which can be defeated whenever one or several western countries decide that the costs outweigh the benefits. Russia is the exact opposite of that. Russia is invulnerable. It’s a monolith. You cannot move it, you can only convince it to move on its own.

We don’t need to indefinitely co-exist with Iran on this Earth. But we do need to indefinitely co-exist with Russia. Our attitude towards Russia should reflect that fact.

So according to you, Russia just needs to declare that they’ll nuke anyone who touches Iran and then the whole world must back off, forever. Hopefully Putin doesn’t skim this forum for such brilliant insight. 

The past few years in Ukraine have proven quite clearly that the Russian military is dogshit, and they also can’t use nukes because (as you fully know) there would be severe world-ending consequences to them doing so. 

The *real* difference between Russia and Iran is that Russian leaders are very much afraid to die, but the religious fanatics in charge of Iran are not. This is precisely why Iran having nukes is an actual threat. 

Also, what are the “benefits” to the west from the Iranian regime? 

 

On 6/18/2025 at 7:55 AM, stansfield123 said:

Demanding the surrender of Iran isn’t on the table, because enforcing that demand isn’t on the table.

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/trump-urges-tehran-evacuation-iran-israel-conflict-enters-fifth-day-2025-06-17/

Okay if you’re a troll account then I rescind everything I’ve ever said about you because that would be incredibly funny. 

[stansfield123]

On 6/16/2025 at 5:40 AM, Harrison Danneskjold said:

Oh, Hell no.  I’d like to think that’s one lesson we all should have learned by now.

So why are you hoping for regime change then? What do you think will happen, after the regime changes? Iran will become a western style democracy?

The best case scenario is that the new regime will be one western nations can work with to maintain a slightly less belligerent, nuke free Iran. That’s the hope in Syria, as well. That’s why we’re working with the people who took over, not because they’re freedom loving individualists. We’re working with them because they seem open to being managed to some extent. To being guided towards some semblance of order and cooperation.

Quote

One of the other benefits of glassing a place

I wish people would stop saying shit like this. First off, you don’t understand what a nuclear weapon does. It’s not a good way to commit genocide. Hiroshima wasn’t “turned to glass”, it’s still there. Most of its people survived.

If you want to commit genocide, you’re gonna have to go in and start killing people. One at a time. That’s the only method that actually works.

Second, Iran isn’t special. It’s an Islamic state because it’s a Muslim country that was left to its own devices by Jimmy Carter.That’s what Muslims do when they’re left to their own devices: they establish Islamic states. It’s what they’ve been doing for 1000+ years. So what’s your big plan? Wipe out all Muslims, because you can’t stomach the idea of managing a problem instead of magically making it disappear?

[Jon_C]

20 minutes ago, stansfield123 said:

If you want to commit genocide, you’re gonna have to go in and start killing people. One at a time. That’s the only method that actually works.

Starvation is also an effective tool that has been used numerous times.  

24 minutes ago, stansfield123 said:

Hiroshima wasn’t “turned to glass”, it’s still there. Most of its people survived.

One nuke is not terribly effective for genocide, true. How about hundreds? 

Maybe it’s worth saying that I do not share Harrison’s view about the viability of glassing anyone as a long-term solution to any of our problems, lest I be misunderstood. 

[whYNOT]

6 hours ago, stansfield123 said:

In every example you gave, the President had bipartisan political support for the actions he took.

In this case, Trump does not have such support for going to war with Iran. He doesn’t even have a simple majority backing him, members of his own party are introducing stupid anti-war resolutions. Demanding the surrender of Iran isn’t on the table, because enforcing that demand isn’t on the table. Cannot be done. Iran has access to CNN. They know it would be an empty threat.

 

Strongly on board as I am with a self-interested, non-altruist/interventionist USA for its good and for other countries, the anti-war “isolationists” are flat-out wrong, ultimately, self-sacrificial.

Present situation, it is nowhere at any time a matter of committing US forces to that arena, just a single mission by a B-52 at little risk after the complete air dominance that the Israelis have achieved. 

Ah, but what will the regime do in reprisal? Won’t it attack the American bases? If it does, it does, too much second-guessing looks weak, and is. But then the aerial retaliation on Iran by the two nations will be massive, and despite the bold rhetoric they know this, ending permanently Iran’s military threat to the region and abroad,  again without committing American ground troops.

But I would prefer that Israel finished their self-defensive war as they began it, alone, incredibly seeing off all its enemies; but it lacks the ordinance for that crucial underground installation. (I am sick and tired of hearing “Israel/Jews are [again] ‘dragging us’ into war”… since when?)

Watching the CNN wrangle the issue must lend morale to Tehran and other foes of the west, seeing the isolationists’ lack of will and resolve to defend the USA’s own security (what do isolationists believe Iran could intend - or would menace - with its nuclear weapons and ICBM  programs?) nor will they avert the spreading turmoil of an Iran-dominant Middle East. “The USA is becoming a paper tiger”.

The skeptics, one must take the isolationists for, seem not to reason and anticipate much worse down the line by not taking action now.

Perceptions count with people. “America First” has to maintain its image of permanent deterrence with occasional, judicious actions. A powerful and free nation will draw enemies, and must reserve the right to pre-emptively surprise-strike a country  - all without “boots on the ground”, as modern warfare allows, or conquest and occupation, lengthy (and self-sacrificial) “entanglements” - negating too, the also altruistic “warhawks” on the other side of this false alternative.

Values kept/gained at what cost? Wars come down to which “hill” is one prepared to fight for and possibly sometimes die on.

[Harrison_Danneskjold]

11 hours ago, stansfield123 said:

Russia is impossible to defeat militarily, because they have a nuclear arsenal with which they can annihilate any attacker. That’s not an argument, that’s a statement of fact.

Firstly, it’s not impossible to defeat a nuclear power.  It is risky, and shouldn’t be attempted just for the LOLS (we shouldn’t be declaring war on, say, Britain or France simply because they have nukes) but we absolutely could do it, if we decided it was worth the risk.

 

Here’s a good rule of thumb: you must never dismiss the possibility of conflict with someone who does not share your values and interests, nor assume that they will automatically win such a conflict. The moment you concede that you’ve already surrendered your own values.

 

And to be perfectly frank I have had just about enough of the defeatist, hand-wringing sort of obsequiousness towards Russia that the right seems to have recently discovered.  You’re an American, for God’s sake!  It’s our flag that’s on the moon (which rightfully should be American territory) and we’re the ones who decided the outcome of two world wars (one of which involved the invention of the very weapons you consider undefeatable)!  Everyone, in every single country on Earth, watches the movies and listens to the music that we create.  Which country has by far the greatest number of Nobel laureates, the most scientific discoveries and by far the most inventions?  We are the hub of the production and trade of the entire globe, and our military remains supreme.  We’re the cultural, scientific, economic, technological and military apex of all of Western civilization and if we decide we dislike the underwear that Putin wears then we’ll damn well inform him of where he’s allowed to purchase replacements and how large of an American flag we’ll require on them!

This extremely French sort of attitude used to be unique to the left.

 

9 hours ago, stansfield123 said:

So why are you hoping for regime change then? What do you think will happen, after the regime changes? Iran will become a western style democracy?

Probably not.  They could opt for that (it’s always possible) but I would not bet any actual money on it.

 

The Ayatollahs are bad news, though.  It would be difficult for the Iranians to pick a worse form of government - and if they did then we could quickly and cheaply change the regime again, without setting a single boot on the ground.

I don’t use the word “glass” as a synonym for “nuke”.  I just mean to devastate an area with an aerial bombardment, which our military is very good at and could probably do without a single American casualty.  Iranian casualties are for the Iranians to worry about when they’re choosing their next form of government.

 

9 hours ago, stansfield123 said:

Second, Iran isn’t special. It’s an Islamic state because it’s a Muslim country that was left to its own devices by Jimmy Carter.That’s what Muslims do when they’re left to their own devices: they establish Islamic states. It’s what they’ve been doing for 1000+ years. So what’s your big plan? Wipe out all Muslims, because you can’t stomach the idea of managing a problem instead of magically making it disappear?

No, the modern form of Islam is not “what they’ve been doing for 1000+ years”; the modern (past century or so) interpretation of the Koran and the Hadiths is far more rigid, virulent and fundamentalist than anyone has tried to practice for a very long time.  Just as the modern form of Christianity is very different from the early form that conquered Rome, the modern form of Islam is different from (and much worse than) any earlier strain of it.

The current form of Islam evolved as a response to prior military humiliations by Western countries; they embraced the strictest and harshest possible interpretations of their scriptures out of the belief that Allah would bring them victory if they did so.  The Islamists (the political Muslims who are causing problems) are more than happy to explain that their fanaticism will lead them to military victory.

 

Yaron Brook has an excellent lecture course on YouTube about this, if you’re interested.  It’s about six hours long but it explains exactly what I’m talking about in much more detail.

To remedy this belief it’s not necessary to wipe out all or even most Muslims.  We only need to demonstrate that Allah will not save them from America.  I don’t know how many Muslim regimes we’ll have to stomp on before they learn that lesson but we should continue the demonstration until they do so.  Half-measures do not work in the Middle East.

[DavidOdden]

Trump says that “I’m not looking to fight, but if it’s a choice between fighting and having a nuclear weapon, you have to do what you have to do”. This is also true of deciding to be whipped and burned or deciding to not be whipped and burned, having your cake or eating it, or shitting or getting off the pot. Rand and Aristotle observed a common property of these situations, that “A is A”. Actually, we could just say “If you have a clue ‘what you have to do’, then you should just do it” – implement some kind of is-ought AI algorithm. I understand that he may not yet know what he should do, I wonder what further knowledge would get him to the point of being able to identify “what we have to do” or at least “what he has to do”.

There is compelling evidence, in the form of self-incriminating testimony, that he is indeed clueless. Speaking of the possibility of a U.S. air strike, he says “I may do it, I may not do it. I mean, nobody knows what I’m going to do”. This is very clear confirmation of a lack of self awareness, and even supports the long-standing theory that Trump is an AI cyborg developed by Russia.

He offers another insight into his “mental” processes, saying that “Nothing is finished until it is finished”, another sub-sub-theorem of “A is A”, up there with brilliant insights like “It is what it is” and in stark contrast to the competing overly-specific rule that “It ain’t over until the fat lady sing”.

Just to prove that he holds no malice against evil dictators and to show that he is really on their side, when Khamenei refused to surrender Trump wished Khameini good luck.

 

[whYNOT]

https://youtu.be/DDnZ4x55j9c?si=j1wBPGEpwBq-yKNW

The libertarian, Dave Smith is confronted by his moral relativism.

Something seems hard for many westerners to envisage: a national self-defense posture, every moment. 

Then they make “warmongering” and “expansionist” accusations. But Israel’s history has been “warlike” - because it needed to be. 

{Whoever made this remark it has been coming up often, if by implication,

“Tell me what you accuse the Jews[/Israel] of and I’ll tell you what you’re guilty of”.}

 

[Jon_C]

On 6/18/2025 at 8:41 AM, stansfield123 said:

Hiroshima wasn’t “turned to glass”, it’s still there. Most of its people survived.

Just a quick fact check on this point that I didn’t mention before. It’s conceivable to me that this statement was an honest error, or that the information I found contradicting it is inaccurate.  

Per Wikipedia, over 70% of the buildings in Hiroshima were destroyed in the bombing; so the fact that it’s “still there” really means that it was rebuilt later. 

Second, about 20% (70000 people) of the population of Hiroshima was killed in the initial blast, and by the end of the year the deaths from radiation, etc., brought the number up to (at most) 40%. For a comparison, the proportion of European Jews killed in the holocaust is about 2/3, and is about 1/3 of all Jews, but I don’t know if “we killed fewer than half of the Jews in the world” would have been a terribly compelling argument at Nuremberg if Goering had tried to argue that the Nazis hadn’t committed genocide. 

[Harrison_Danneskjold]

On 6/19/2025 at 10:09 AM, DavidOdden said:

Trump says that “I’m not looking to fight, but if it’s a choice between fighting and having a nuclear weapon, you have to do what you have to do”. This is also true of deciding to be whipped and burned or deciding to not be whipped and burned, having your cake or eating it, or shitting or getting off the pot. Rand and Aristotle observed a common property of these situations, that “A is A”. Actually, we could just say “If you have a clue ‘what you have to do’, then you should just do it” – implement some kind of is-ought AI algorithm. I understand that he may not yet know what he should do, I wonder what further knowledge would get him to the point of being able to identify “what we have to do” or at least “what he has to do”.

There is compelling evidence, in the form of self-incriminating testimony, that he is indeed clueless. Speaking of the possibility of a U.S. air strike, he says “I may do it, I may not do it. I mean, nobody knows what I’m going to do”. This is very clear confirmation of a lack of self awareness, and even supports the long-standing theory that Trump is an AI cyborg developed by Russia.

He offers another insight into his “mental” processes, saying that “Nothing is finished until it is finished”, another sub-sub-theorem of “A is A”, up there with brilliant insights like “It is what it is” and in stark contrast to the competing overly-specific rule that “It ain’t over until the fat lady sing”.

Just to prove that he holds no malice against evil dictators and to show that he is really on their side, when Khamenei refused to surrender Trump wished Khameini good luck.

 

 

IDK.  The more this situation develops the happier I find myself with it.

 

[DavidOdden]

Trump demonstrated that he has testicles and is willing to use them. I am surprised, but this is a turn for the better for once.