I don't care about Iran's leadership and think this shouldn't be the US's war to fight. Also, we aren't even trying to replace their government, we're just attacking per Israel's wishes. There must be a lot of Americans who agree.
Israel's leader is wanted by the international court for genocide. And lets not forget how Iran's current government took power? US installed a dictator in Iran because UK was angry that Iran nationalized the UK owned oil fields. This led to a coup, which resulted in the current Iranian government.
There's no good guys. Why is the US even there?
Edit: downvoted to -3. Did i say anything that was untrue? Or do people not like the truth?
> US installed a dictator in Iran because UK was angry that Iran nationalized the UK owned oil fields.
> Did i say anything that was untrue? Or do people not like the truth?
It is widely assumed, but not factually correct, that the US was responsible.
On August 15th 1953 the CIA staged a coup to overthrow the government, but it failed. By the next day the State Department was actively trying to enter into diplomatic talks.
Three days later a group of clerics headed by Ayatollah Borujerdi took advantage of the situation and stirred up unrest that was ultimately responsible for the Shah taking power. They had been concerned about Mossadeq embracing secular liberalism and a referendum that dissolved the Majlis (parliament/congress). MI-6 had offered them support, but they rejected it.
> On 19 August 1953, Prime Minister of Iran Mohammad Mosaddegh was overthrown in a coup d'état that strengthened the rule of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the Shah of Iran. It was instigated by the United Kingdom (MI6), under the name Operation Boot[5][6][7][8] and the United States (CIA), under the name TP-AJAX Project[9] or Operation Ajax. A key motive was to protect British oil interests in Iran after Mosaddegh nationalized the country's oil industry
That was the understanding until the CIA released a bunch of documents in 2017 which revealed that it was such an abysmal failure that they almost called off the entire thing.
The attempted coup brought out a lot of pro Mossadeq protestors. It wasn't until the 19th when clerics organized anti Mossadeq protestors that it took hold.
Might be worth flagging to Wikipedia editors for a review.
Even if we take these claims at face value, think about how this looks from the Iranian side:
- Failed coup attempt threatens government
- 'Ooops sorry just pranking you lol'
- Distracted government challenged by internal actor
- Power vacuum followed by monarchy
I'm sorry, this is like disclaiming responsibility for shooting at you on the grounds that most of my bullets missed and the one that hit just winged you. It's not my fault that your grumpy neighbor exploited the situation to attack you and then a third actor exploited the situation to seize all your assets!
Yes. We had no good justification for war against the crown circa the American revolutionary war. The crown spent a lot of money defending us vs the French in the French and Indian war and were totally justified in levying the extremely low taxes that they did on the colonists.
Maybe defending and taxing the colonies should've been the colonies' decision, not England's. Even if England gave them a favorable deal that they then broke, England's mistake then.
Also, I only care about what outcome is better for us in the long run. Being part of UK or Canada wouldn't have been better. Though many colonies' independence movements have led to disaster.
Huh? I'm just pointing out that their supposed timeline of events missed a rather notable one.
Also, yes, your insight that not all revolutions are equal is correct. The US "revolution" (really more of a war for independence) was a net positive. The Iranian Revolution (which truly was a revolution) was a net negative.
The funny thing is that the prosecutor for the ICC (Khan) who issued charges against Netanyahu was just removed today over sexual assault allegations, which had previously not been reported because the Muslim victim was worried that the charges against Netanyahu would be dropped. Khan literally messaged her “Think about the Palestinian arrest warrants”. Palestine has been such an effective political tool for the Muslim oligarchs and patriarchy. So anyway… more bad guys.
Why do we think it's our job to intervene in other countries like this?
And if we wanted to help another country, working with the international community should be the only approach we take.
We've spent many decades overthrowing countries to what end? Even our vassals like Israel have universal healthcare while we're all in debt because of healthcare. It's not working and needs to stop.
In this case, the US was pretty involved in destabilizing the country. If the us and the uk hadn't intervened in 50s, Iran would have made a successful transition from monarchy to democracy. I guess we can discuss if the US owes anything to anyone, but a case for the us correcting earlier mistakes can definitely be made.
Og course there's so much more to the story.. but the fact is that the monarchy was effectively overthrown and shah had given up power and fled the country. In this particular instance it's very simple.. the us and the uk was bad
Pahlavi was basically disconnected from the West by the middle to end of his reign, not an ally at all. Pahlavi's Iran cofounded OPEC, nationalized their oil in 1973, and pressured OPEC to raise prices. Really makes me wonder.
just bc the shah fled the country doesn't mean the us and uk were bad or even the root cause. same kind of simple-minded ignorance that led to Mossadegh's rise in the first place.
I can't assume that Iran would've successfully transitioned to democracy, or that it's even what should happen there. All those Arabian Gulf countries are monarchies.
I don't know Islam's exact role in Iranian government, but it clearly has one, as it determined the last revolution there. But more importantly, they're in a region of monarchies and dictatorships. Not saying they can't be a democracy, it's just a big assumption to make that they would've been, like I really don't see any reason.
Btw, lots of Arabic influence in Iranian culture. Yeah separate Indoeuropean language, but Arabic alphabet, tons of Arabic loanwords, and required Arabic lessons partially to help read the Quran. There's a reason the Pahlavis wanted to emphasize Aryan pride instead.
It comes down to the simple reality that "I am because we are" and as such any time a human being is oppressed we are all oppressed.
One could make the argument the people who live in liberal democracies have an obligation to help those who unfortunately do not and who are still forced to live under autocratic oppression.
There were periods in history where most people lived under the thumb of some sort of autocrat of one form or another be they monarchs or religious leaders. Most people had very few human rights and had little opportunity for self-determination. Through the hard work of revolutionaries around the world many of those autocrats were deposed and others seeing the writing on the wall offered power to the people more willingly.
Think of it like a jailbreak where the jailer is oppressive and everyone in the jail is innocent. On your wait out should help open the cells of as many people as you can if only out of your own self interest because a larger mob escaping gives each individual a better chance to escape due to strength in numbers but also because it's just the right thing to do.
It's sort of the same thing here, Our ancestors (or even some of us) got out from under the thumb of an autocrat jailer but there are still others in that jail. If we don't help them who will? What would you want someone else to do if you were in their situation? To walk by an unjustly imprisoned person's jail cell and not free them when it is trivial to do so makes you the jailer.
Now that's the theory. In practice, I agree with much of what you're saying -- reality is a far trickier place than we'd like and the details make doing the right thing difficult if not impossible. And that doesn't cover the reality that western democracies are imperfect themselves and that many of their citizens are still subject to repression by their own autocratic leaning leaders, and so that we can't always do the right thing, but we should at least aspire to.
If you overthrow one autocrat and the society is not ready to self-govern, you'll just have another one taking his place. The best you can do is to fund some kind of democratic opposition on the ground and in exile, hoping to grow a political class mature enough that they will take over after autocrat loses power one way or another.
If I were living in brutal dictatorship that has majority support (that’s today Russia) I’d really want foreign powers to „meddle”. But an average Russian likes the current state and hence hates any foreign attempts at influence.
The problem with meddling is the unintended long term consequences. Did the historical record teach us nothing?
Are you sure that meddling in Russian internal affairs would result in better outcome? Even if it results in the collapse of Putin's regime? Can you predict who will replace him? What will happen to all Russian nukes?
Do you live in USA? Do you think Trump is a threat to US democracy? How would you feel about foreign powers meddling in USA?
That's why I'd limit "meddling" to trying to inform and educate the local population. They don't have access to news (due to state censorship, the people are few propagandistic lies instead), at the very least foreign power can try and provide that, like they did with "Radio Free Europe" during the Cold War.
Btw, Iran does have an opposition group in exile in the US, and nobody is trying to reinstate them. I'm not saying they should be, just that Trump's talk about changing the govt in Iran isn't in good faith.
Trump is not Che Guevara. The US doesn't send troops at great personal danger to themselves to help oppressed revolutionaries. They back fascist dictatorships and launch drone strikes. They murdered 120 children on day one in Iran. Buying the party line here is absurd.
> Why do we think it's our job to intervene in other countries like this?
If Iran wasn't supporting terror organizations around the world and didn't help russia I would agree. Their country, they can kill as much of their own people as they please.
Well, maybe start fixing problems at home before spending tens of billions not fixing things anywhere else? we can't even change ourselves for the better, an adjudicated rapist, alleged pedophile rules us, and we're going to reform other countries? what grounds do we have to be casting stones ? "they're killing protestors!" I hear many westerns say, while ignoring the americans we're jailing for 30 years, calling terrorists for protesting the extrajudicial killings ICE are doing.
we have millions without healthcare, above subsistence employment, food security. Why are americans worried about "changing" iran?? Let's look in the mirror, folks.
Either treat it as not our problem, or if we're going to get involved, have a strategy to change the government. Yes it has been done in Iran at least once from the outside, maybe twice.
The alternative is what the last five American presidents have done: containment. There's a reason Biden, Obama, Bush, Clinton and Bush didn't start the war that Trump did. This is why.
Trump could EASILY increase US support to Ukraine. He could have even done what France was flirting with, which was deploying boots on the ground in defensive positions as a "red line". Bringing up Ukraine/Russia is not in good faith. You know this, you know that democrats have called for aggressively arming Ukraine and never wanted this dumb Iran war.
Trump isn't "strong" until he actually calls Putin's bluff on nuclear weapons. You're not gonna do it Putin, and I'm fully willing for me and everyone I know to die in WW3/nuclear holocaust just to make sure Putin goes to hell a bit faster.
Trump indeed has. And that chart doesn't show Miram Adelson's $100M given to Trump's campaign plus whatever she and her husband gave before the first term, so even terms of money Trump is far ahead. From a woman who describes herself as an Israeli stuck in America.
However, Biden is completely pro-Israel. He would do anything for them and has said so. Guessing he didn't think attacking Iran was the best thing for Israel. Well look at how it's going.
As mentioned, if you want to talk nuance bring the nuance to your comment. Don't try to fake it with "Even Bush and Biden" to make yourself feel smart on HN. You aren't, that shit's dangerous because it excuses further malfesance. Bush and Biden left a functioning gulf, Trump didn't. That difference is important even if you want to talk nuance.
Well thanks. I agree Trump screwed up the situation the most. Bush invading Iraq with ground forces was a larger intervention and was not fine at all, but also less brazen because Saddam were more isolated. Allies were willing to help too. Iran War ruins our reputation like nothing else.
When I said "even" Biden and Bush, it meant in the sense that they were less of a problem but did overreach. Why mention that... In the same vein, even the Democratic party is still largely pro-Israel, and more so disagrees with the Republican party on how to do it. And they're quieter about it, which tbh is smarter. Trump has accepted by far the most money for Israel, but from a different place than others, the Adelsons. Biden's is from AIPAC, and they likely bet on him because he's so supportive of Israel at the core, whereas Trump might be more transactional.
Not OP, but I don't understand how you claim that Bush and Biden have nothing to do with the mess in the middle-east? Didn't Bush start the Iraq war, which removed political stability and introduced social and political chaos there? Didn't subsequent US Presidents after 9/11, including Biden, prolong the National Emergency to fight "terrorists" (look it up - while The Democratic party fear mongers that Trump will proclaim a National Emergency, the National Emergency declared after 9/11 is still in force! Every US President since 9/11, whether Democrat or Republican has extended it so that they can abuse the extraordinary powers it gives the US President).
Exactly. General opposition to the war on terror and the US in general has blinded you to obvious analysis that things were basically OK seven months ago and they're shit now, and there's a reason for that that isn't anything to do with US hegemony or whatever.
If you want to oppose imperialist scum, this makes sense. If you want the global economy to not be shit, it doesn't.
Ground troops have to invade Iran. Trump can't do that now because of upcoming midterm elections. After the elections, if there is no other way then Trump has to send ground troops in.
Forget Iraq, forget Afghanistan... because This Time It's Different
and of course ground troops _have_ to invade Iraq, Saddam has WMD's. And it will finally bring stability to the region. And they _have_ to invade Afghanistan, there is no way to take out bin Laden otherwise. And it will finally bring stability to the region. Casualties will be minimal because the oppressed natives will welcome us as liberators and our overwhelming military superiority will ensure our troops suffer no casualties.
There are no good choices here. It is either ground invasion and restore Ahmadinejad to power, or accept defeat and accept whatever "protection fee" Iran wants to charge ships passing through the Strait of Hormuz.
How are these equivalent? Yes, if you've started a pointless unjust war that you can't win, the right thing to do is say mea culpa, accept whatever fees the other party charges and fuck off forever. Not try your best to start WWIII just because, hell, we already killed 3000 civilians, might as well try to beat our high score from Iraq, right?
I believe IDF accepts foreign volunteers if they are Jewish. I could be wrong. If you are a jew, you can join now. You don't have to wait for the USA to send troops.
The alternative is it just destroy all their oil infrastructure and wait for the regime to collapse from lack of funds. But Trump doesn't want to do that (or let Israel do it) because he dreams of taking all that oil for himself and his buddies like in Venezuela.
If you do that, the oil, gas, and desalination infrastructure of the Gulf states will go down together with Iran. And besides that, why do you want to fight Iran to begin with?
This gets downvoted and ignored in every thread I see, not just on this website. But how is this not obviously the answer? We know Russia and China are funneling money to Iran so it would be a double win to drain their coffers too.
Morality aside, I just don’t see how this has been ignored. I know there is a large push for peace by many of the leaders of Iran and it turns out decentralized power can be a double-edged sword. Still, they can’t hold out forever.
