War is never a good idea, but Iran didn't care and they have been waging war for 40 years. Do you just let them perpetually build strength internally while funding terrorism externally? They have been spreading extremism and instability in the region for decades. They surrounded Israel with militants and attacked them.
We knew they could disrupt shipping through the strait, that is a large part of the purpose behind "drill baby drill", stopping Venezuela from invading Guyana where we have oil infrastructure, and increasing oil investment into Venezuela, along with reopening some oil drilling off California.
We also knew we likely couldn't justify the risks and costs of sending in a large invasion force for multiple reasons. If a decent deal couldn't be made, then at least you remove an oil supplier from China and you mow the grass to limit the threat Iran poses in the near future. Even if the strait remains in conflict for years, in the long-term that is a good thing, because it forces an acceleration of bypassing it as an issue which means Iran loses a big button to push in the future.
Meanwhile, with oil prices higher, that is historically good for oil investment which is excellent for Venezuela so more of the fuels that countries rely on come from our hemisphere. We're not new at this game.
- I don't care about removing oil suppliers from China, I don't know anyone who does. I get most of my stuff from them, seems like a bad idea
- I don't care about Venezuela or lies about them being (drug lords|conquering invaders|bad hombres), they are sovereign, the U.S has no right, justification or excuse to be kidnapping their leaders or fucking with their politics.
- The United States has been spreading extremism and instability globally for 40+ years.
- Oil production in the U.S. is not meaningfully higher than it was under Biden, so "drill baby drill" was just another lie that's been lapped up and is now being spit back out
- A decent deal HAD BEEN MADE under Obama, it was pretty good most would say, then Trump tore it up because of his ego and tiny dick/tiny hands syndrome.
- "mowing the grass" sounds like terrorism first and foremost and crimes against humanity second.
- Just because the U.S. and Israel Administrations want to self select into being world police does not make it just or right.
> - I don't care about removing oil suppliers from China, I don't know anyone who does. I get most of my stuff from them, seems like a bad idea
Is that because you don't know what caused World War 2 and you don't have any family who served in World War 2?
> - I don't care about Venezuela or lies about them being (drug lords|conquering invaders|bad hombres), they are sovereign, the U.S has no right, justification or excuse to be kidnapping their leaders or fucking with their politics.
Maduro was an internationally wanted criminal. He was also going to invade his neighbor, Guyana after the UN rejected his claim against it. You don't cross half your hemisphere to arrest someone on legal grounds if you don't have a case. International law is not useful as a concept to keep the world from descending into chaos unless some kind of enforcement occurs. The reasons he was officially arrested for are not the only reasons he was arrested.
> - The United States has been spreading extremism and instability globally for 40+ years.
That is not a strong argument. The US was isolationist until its ships were getting attacked at sea. Then it was isolationist until the world kept descending into wars we had to join to stop. Then we established more world structure that has proven to reduce the occurrence of war. We've been trying to establish the same kind of stability Europe has, in the Middle East.
> - Oil production in the U.S. is not meaningfully higher than it was under Biden, so "drill baby drill" was just another lie that's been lapped up and is now being spit back out
Crude oil - https://www.arescotx.com/2015-2025-us-field-production-crude... shows an increase in 4mil barrels per day. Even in the first term, the Trump administration was pursuing an energy dominance agenda, but it's not all attributable to their policies.
> - A decent deal HAD BEEN MADE under Obama, it was pretty good most would say, then Trump tore it up because of his ego and tiny dick/tiny hands syndrome.
The US has hundreds of millions of people. Trump is not the only person we have. Iran has been seen as a critical threat to the US, to the region and to the world for many decades. The JCPOA did not stop the threat nor sufficiently monitor it. Iran continued building nuclear sites underground and moved their centrifuges underground, meeting with North Korean nuclear missile scientists, etc. The IAEA also requested access to various sites and were denied or delayed by Iran. The IAEA was only reporting Iran's compliance to its commitments under the JCPOA, which was a bad deal and as such, complying with the JCPOA was insufficient.
Iran had a history of breaking international law which continued after the JCPOA. They have never truly established an essential level of trust that would be required to give them the benefit of the doubt that the JCPOA was being complied with, which the inspection process in place could not guarantee. They were also out of compliance with the JCPOA in developing ballistic missiles capable of delivering a nuclear warhead.
> - "mowing the grass" sounds like terrorism first and foremost and crimes against humanity second.
It's just an analogy. The Iranian revolutionaries have dug themselves in to such an extent that going in to change their regime would almost certainly require so much killing that it would practically be genocide. Reducing their military assets and installations is the alternative. This is all a response to terrorism to start with.
> - Just because the U.S. and Israel Administrations want to self select into being world police does not make it just or right.
No, we don't want to. It's simply existential that we do. We would much rather not. I don't care about most of these places halfway around the world. It would be nice if they'd simply live in peace and have their own lives. They do not. History has proven that if we let chaos abroad gain too much momentum, it will eventually lead to some large scale war that we'll get dragged into. Why do we get dragged into them? Why can't we just stay out of the wars? Well, if one country, like Germany, Japan, China or Russia simply continues to expand outward and gain huge power imbalances, they become a threat to freedom. The US had kinds of freedom that even most citizens do not fully appreciate or deeply understand.
Iran, Russia and China deliberately label the US as their enemy. Even Saudi Arabia has effectively referred to Iran as the Nazi Germany of the Middle East. After the communists helped the Iranian Islamic revolutionaries gain power, they killed thousands of communists. Even recently they slaughtered many thousands of their own people. They do not care about human life.
It's very strange to me that you seem to like defending dictators who torture and kill their own people. I guess that's what the globalized internet is these days.
> Is that because you don't know what caused World War 2 and you don't have any family who served in World War 2?
Pretty familiar, also familiar with Vietnam, Korea, Cuba, Libya, Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. I can link pictures and articles detailing American Service Members and the women and children they shot, blew up, raped, burned alive, and otherwise mutilated in each of those engagements.
My familiarity with WW2, and it's causes make my deeply uneasy about the idea of going to war with a peer power like China; China who was an ally in WW3, maybe you don't know this and didn't have any family who served in World War 2?
Anyways no idea why you'd bring this up or what point you were trying to make? War is good or something? War can be justified if the orange man on the TV says the (enemy) country is "bigly bad"?
---
The amount of delusion here is actually baffling, given https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law I'm not going to respond to all of this. I do think it's incredibly entertaining to watch people/bots defend the convicted felons leading the U.S. by saying it's absolutely imperative we stop crime everywhere else!
Most statements you made are fabricated or right wing talking points not based in any type of reality (JCPOA bad not complying [all evidence is against this]; "Iran is an existential threat" - Not to me or anyone I know of have ever met, not a single day of my life has gone by that I felt directly under threat by anyone in Iran).
It's all the same with you people, try and propagandize the rest of us with threats and doom about the death and destruction that will certainly come from these places half way around the world, while completely ignoring the death and destruction that the U.S. exports globally every single day. It's sickening.
There's a difference between soldiers stepping out of line in war versus behaving according to policy. War is never good. It's not really a strong argument to say hey, I've got all these disturbing photos that show the US is bad. Well, you could also show disturbing photos that make any country look bad. The point is the context and how it got to be that way.
China is sometimes referred to as a peer power, but in many ways they remain extremely far behind. That is both a good thing and a bad thing. Weak countries go to extremes. Strong countries who think they are stronger than they are, could potentially go to similar extremes to make up for that perception.
Not all crimes are equivalent, and not all crimes are actual crimes even if people call them crimes.
It's easier to dismiss people than to engage, but then you stop challenging yourself and navigating the differences to understand the world better. Sometimes I'm wrong, but I try to be correct and not purely for emotional satisfaction.
You don't get to call it "stepping out of line" if there are no consequences for doing so. See for example how the My Lai Massacre was handled[1]. The pattern continues when it comes to shooting down an airliner[2], an airstrike on a hospital[3] and many more cases.
If no-one ever gets more than a stern talking to, then clearly there is no line. These actions are as close to adhering to policy as you can get without saying it outright.
#1 looks like a case of poor incentives which were a little too flexible as a result of what they were up against from the guerilla fighters. every army has elements that can get out of control if not kept on a tight leash, the US is no different in that regard. the difference is that we will identify and correct it if we see it.
#2 looks like a legitimate accident. technology wasn't as good as it is now. there were apologies and payments to the Iranian families. it sounds like they tried to follow protocol.
you can look at other countries who have shot down commercial airliners to see that this wasn't unique to the US in any way. the difference is that we tried to communicate and verify first, when many other countries didn't.
#3 just looks like a largely human mistake, which was recognized by multiple people involved privately and publicly. it's possible if they picked coordinates and had a database of protected locations, it could've been flagged, but i don't know if something like that exists. the nature of some of these decisions is that they have to happen fast, but that means your process has to be really good to avoid mistakes.
you also didn't mention the case where we drone striked a vehicle with kids in it and we publicly apologized for it. these things do happen, but considering the extremely large number of strikes the US tends to do, these are relatively rare.
because our society does value truth when it matters, it usually makes it out if there is substance to it. in many other societies, the governments can just perpetually deny and anyone who disagrees will be jailed or killed. that doesn't mean we don't have secrets like anyone else.
1. The British were stealing Iranian oil (ie the Anglo-Persian Company, which is now BPl;
2. Iran democratically elected Mossadegh who said Iranian resources would be for Iranians;
3. The British freak out. MI6 twice goes to the newly elected Eisenhower administration to get them to intervene. They are rebuffed the first time so the British come back with a fabricated story about how this is communism somehow and the Eisenhower administration takes the bait;
4. Eisenhowever overthrows the democratically elected government of Iran to install the Shah as an autocrat (he was previously a figurehead pretty much);
5. The Shah takes the oil and basically gives it to the Americans so the British didn't even get what they wanted;
6. The Shah was a brutal dictator that included Savak, a secret police that had a history of violence, represseion and disappearing people;
7. By the late 1970s it was becoming clear that the Shah's regime would fall. The Americans were worried that the Communists would win and Iran would fall into the Soviet sphere of influence so got their puuppet in the region, Saddam Hussein, to expel Khomenei from Iraq in the hopes that the Isalamic fundamentalists would win;
8. The fundamentalists did win. Iran was punished for expelling the American puppet with crippling economic sanctions. Additionally, Saddam Hussein was armed and prompted to go fight a war with Iran. The Iran-Iraq war lasted years, killed over a million people (iranians and Iraqis) and basically had no other change in borders or regimes in the region;
9. After 9/11. Iran gave material aid to the US including rounding up hundreds of al-Qaeda fighters;
10. Despite 15 of the 19 hijackers being Saudi, Osama bin Laden being Saudi and al-Qaeda getting material support from Saudi princes and Saudi madrasses (religious schools), Iran got lumped in with Iraq and North Korea as the "Axis of Evil". The reason for this were the hawks in the US administration who believed that George HW Bush messed up not overthrowing Saddam Hussein in 1991. They had prior to 9/11 urged the Clinton administration and Congress to invade Iran;
11. Iraq was invaded because the neocon hawks, particularly Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, won the policy debate. It is highly believed they thought they would be overthrowing Iran too;
12. North Korea managed to stave off attacks by developing a nuclear weapon. That was the true lesson of the Global War on Terror: only a nuclear weapon will guarantee your survival;
13. Despite that the second Ayatollah, Khamenei, issued a fatwa against developing a nuclear weapon, something which still stands to this day, in 2003;
14. Obama negotitated (with European allies) the JCPOA, a program to inspect Iranian nuclear sites, in exchange for sanctions relief. There is no proof the Iranians ever violated the agreement. They even kept abiding by it for up to a year after Trump tore it up to appease Israel;
15. Israel committed too many hostile acts to enumerate, including the bombing of an embassy in Damascus, targeted assassinations within Iran, the murder of Iranians overseas, etc, pretty much all of which Iran just took on the chin;
16. The US and Israel started an unprovoked war last year, which included killing the Iranian negotiators. This war went so badly that hostilities ended after 12 days. It was widely suspected at the time that supplies of anti-missile munitions were getting critically low. Iran basically acted in good faith here that the Americans would negotiate in good faith; and
17. The Iranians were wrong. America did not act in good faith and started another unprovoked war at Israel's urging that included, for some reason, blowing up a middle school with almost 200 10-12 year old girls in it and killing an 87 year old man who had refused to develop a nuclear weapon (ie Khamenei) who also refused to go into a bunker because his people didn't have the same protections. That strike also killed a whole bunch of his family and the new Ayatollah's family.
18. This brings us to today. From Iran's position, the US cannot be trusted and does not negotiate in good faith. The uS will not restrain Israel in any way, which is an issue given Israel's insatiable appetite for blowing up babies. So Iran has concluded that the only way to guarantee their sovereignty is to make the economic pain so dire that th eUS never thinks about doing this again.
This has been clear for months now and Trump is choosing Israel over the economic pain that has been inflicted and is still coming. Millions will likely starve in the coming year.
But sure, keep repeating your State Department talking points.
Very nice pro-Iranian walk down the memory lane while comfortbly forgetting how piece and people loving Ayatollah killed thousands of Iranians for what good reason?
It's not "pro-Iranian" to acknowledge democracy. The Shah is also responsible for the death, torture and disappearance of thousands of Iranian citizens, with the help of the CIA.
As a US citizen, that concerns me far more than Iran's self-determination. I don't want my tax dollars going towards Yet Another Torture Regime.
> 2. Iran democratically elected Mossadegh who said Iranian resources would be for Iranians;
He was not really democratically elected, and he was not serving democracy. He was converting it into a dictatorship.
> 4. Eisenhowever overthrows the democratically elected government of Iran to install the Shah as an autocrat (he was previously a figurehead pretty much);
Overthrows the dictator, to restore the authority of the shah, you mean.
> 7. By the late 1970s it was becoming clear that the Shah's regime would fall. The Americans were worried that the Communists would win and Iran would fall into the Soviet sphere of influence so got their puuppet in the region, Saddam Hussein, to expel Khomenei from Iraq in the hopes that the Isalamic fundamentalists would win;
That misunderstands the concern that the fundamentalists themselves were a threat to Iraq and Saddam hated communists too. He tortured and killed Iraqi communist party members, systematically.
> 10. Despite 15 of the 19 hijackers being Saudi, Osama bin Laden being Saudi and al-Qaeda getting material support from Saudi princes and Saudi madrasses (religious schools), Iran got lumped in with Iraq and North Korea as the "Axis of Evil". The reason for this were the hawks in the US administration who believed that George HW Bush messed up not overthrowing Saddam Hussein in 1991. They had prior to 9/11 urged the Clinton administration and Congress to invade Iran;
> 11. Iraq was invaded because the neocon hawks, particularly Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, won the policy debate. It is highly believed they thought they would be overthrowing Iran too;
Iraq had invaded its neighbor Kuwait, bombed the World Trade Center once before, tried to assassinate the president and more. Saudi Arabia was an ally and Saudi Arabian citizens were recruited partially because they have easier access to the US, but they were trained in Afghanistan. It might be fair that we wanted a better footprint in the region as a hedge against Iran. It was obviously complicated.
> 12. North Korea managed to stave off attacks by developing a nuclear weapon. That was the true lesson of the Global War on Terror: only a nuclear weapon will guarantee your survival;
Russia wanted a foothold in Korea to strengthen its aim of acquiring Japanese islands to use as warm water ports, since its northern shores regularly froze. That has been ongoing since the early 1800s. Japan even assassinated a leader of Korea who was warming up to Russia too much back then. Eventually during World War 1, Japan took Korea, but when World War 2 ended they lost it to the US and the Soviet Union.
Similar to west Germany and east Germany, you had communist North Korea, then South Korea, but not really administered by the Korean people until they formed their own governments.
North Korea then got support from Russia and China to invade South Korea. North Korea started the war. North Korea was also the major aggressor even before the war.
A lot of countries don't have nukes and aren't getting invaded by other countries. We didn't invade east Germany, we waited for the Soviet Union to collapse.
> 14. Obama negotitated (with European allies) the JCPOA, a program to inspect Iranian nuclear sites, in exchange for sanctions relief. There is no proof the Iranians ever violated the agreement. They even kept abiding by it for up to a year after Trump tore it up to appease Israel;
The JCPOA set out the terms for compliance. The IAEA says, as far as we know they're complying. This only means compliance with the JCPOA. The JCPOA was a bad deal, so the fact they were mostly observed to be complying with it does not matter much. You don't say JCPOA -> being complied with -> shut off brain, turn off lights, lets go home boys. It was transparency with limits, but there were many other intelligence signals and behaviors from Iran that demonstrated that Iran did not stop being a threat. It was simply growing as a threat with international political cover.
> 15. Israel committed too many hostile acts to enumerate, including the bombing of an embassy in Damascus, targeted assassinations within Iran, the murder of Iranians overseas, etc, pretty much all of which Iran just took on the chin;
Iran has essentially been at war with the US and Israel for many decades. You can't look at an action from Israel or the US in a vacuum, that's very weak logic. Most actions are reactions to things Iran has already done. Iran has been surrounding Israel with funded militants, plus expanding these groups around the region.
> 16. The US and Israel started an unprovoked war last year, which included killing the Iranian negotiators. This war went so badly that hostilities ended after 12 days. It was widely suspected at the time that supplies of anti-missile munitions were getting critically low. Iran basically acted in good faith here that the Americans would negotiate in good faith; and
Iran provoked it by funding Houthi attacks on shipping in 2023 after also funding Hamas to attack Israel shortly before. They were breaking international law by shipping with dark fleets, funding attacks in the region and continuing to develop their nuclear program which the JCPOA allowed them to get a running start on.
They attacked others, so they legitimized attacks against themselves. It wasn't unprovoked. That is a very unreasonable perspective.
> 17. The Iranians were wrong. America did not act in good faith and started another unprovoked war at Israel's urging that included, for some reason, blowing up a middle school with almost 200 10-12 year old girls in it and killing an 87 year old man who had refused to develop a nuclear weapon (ie Khamenei) who also refused to go into a bunker because his people didn't have the same protections. That strike also killed a whole bunch of his family and the new Ayatollah's family.
The school was part of a military compound that may have been repurposed. It wasn't intentional, but it is very common for terrorists to intentionally put innocent people around military targets. Hamas did this regularly in Gaza. International law says civilian targets like this are not valid military targets, unless they are being used by the military. Unfortunately, it was probably both a civilian and valid military target. We don't make it a habit of intentionally killing civilians.
Iran does not have freedom of speech the way the US does. As a result, when information circulates in Iran or comes out from Iran, it is often controlled by the state. They will spread their propaganda, but the information is useless. They will do everything in their power to direct your emotions against the US, rather than themselves for their own behavior that caused these attacks to come.
Unfortunately this nonsense also now fills the internet and people fall for it.
> 18. This brings us to today. From Iran's position, the US cannot be trusted and does not negotiate in good faith. The uS will not restrain Israel in any way, which is an issue given Israel's insatiable appetite for blowing up babies.
Iran was not negotiating in good faith and has not been following international law to start with which are agreements presumably they should be following if they are a good and nice country that just wants to live in peace, International laws greatly benefit peaceful countries. If Iran was peaceful like most other countries, they could be benefiting from those same laws. This isn't only observed by the US and Israel, but by other Middle Eastern countries and Europe too. So you can't really say this is some crazy US Israel thing and Iran is really just being good. Nobody believes that, yet this message spreads online.
> So Iran has concluded that the only way to guarantee their sovereignty is to make the economic pain so dire that th eUS never thinks about doing this again.
We didn't take sovereignty away from Japan, Korea, Iraq, Germany, or Venezuela and so on. Your argument is very weak. We don't want every country, we just want them to be good peaceful countries that let their people live in freedom and peace. That's why we have so many allies. Nobody wants to be like our enemies, because they build their societies on poor logic and nobody is allowed to fix it.
We knew they could disrupt shipping through the strait, that is a large part of the purpose behind "drill baby drill", stopping Venezuela from invading Guyana where we have oil infrastructure, and increasing oil investment into Venezuela, along with reopening some oil drilling off California.
We also knew we likely couldn't justify the risks and costs of sending in a large invasion force for multiple reasons. If a decent deal couldn't be made, then at least you remove an oil supplier from China and you mow the grass to limit the threat Iran poses in the near future. Even if the strait remains in conflict for years, in the long-term that is a good thing, because it forces an acceleration of bypassing it as an issue which means Iran loses a big button to push in the future.
Meanwhile, with oil prices higher, that is historically good for oil investment which is excellent for Venezuela so more of the fuels that countries rely on come from our hemisphere. We're not new at this game.