Iran is pulling the same trick now, claiming it "won" just because the regime did not fall (yet). This is despite having lost most of their conventional army, navy, and air force, and having also mostly lost control of the straits of Hormuz.
I thought the claims of Iran winning were based on Iran's opponent collapsing. But it's a very slow collapse, and still not definitive yet, but some people are extrapolating the trajectory, to see that at the current rate, Iran's enemy will fall long before Iran does.
I mean, the Iranian regime has had one goal the whole war: survive. So it is a victory of sorts so far: the US has not achieved its strategic goal of regime change, and Iran has managed to inflict a fair amount of pain in retaliation.
(You could say the Taliban were even more thoroughly 'defeated' in Afghanistan while the country was occupied by the US, but it can hardly be said that it was a victory for the US either, given what happened as soon as they left).
I'm not talking about beforehand (I said 'the whole war' for a reason). When the US attacked Iran, the Iranian government were either going to fight the war or they (the individuals that made up most of that government) were going to die. It's not surprising they are picking the first option by any means necessary, regardless of how they got into the situation in the first place. It's also what made the attack a very high-stakes gamble on the part of the US government, because either the somehow the Iranian government was going to crumble quickly in the attack (despite the best efforts of people who are quite literally fighting for their lives and still quite widespread support amongst the population), or the US was going to find itself embroiled in yet another overseas war with dubious benefits and high costs. To be clear, I have a level of love for the Iranian government that makes me think the first option is perhaps a little too good for them, but it still doesn't make the US's strategic decisions make sense.
> the Iranian government were either going to fight the war
You missed the perfectly reasonable 3rd option. Iran could stop shooting missiles at oil tankers, stop funding proxy groups, and make an arrangement for peace.
We both know though, that they are unwilling to do that. Because peace was never their goal. Instead, they wanted to achieve regional hegemony, and funded proxy groups to do that. But whatever, look how well that worked out for them.
Sure, if taking out the regime is the only pathway to stop Iran from continuing on its current path, then the USA is of course going to try that. But if there was an actual path the peace here, where Iran simply stopped its attacks, things could get back to normal fairly quickly.
Israel can stop attacking and taking over land of random sovereign countries, shooting missiles into peaceful countries like Dubai. What is stopping them?
Israel has shot a grand total of zero missiles at Dubai. Which is not a country; the country is UAE, at which Iran has launched some 2,500 missiles.
What's stopping Israel from attacking "random" countries? Perhaps the fact that they're hardly "random", rather they all host proxy groups of the occupying regime in Iran, who have very openly been subverting those countries into bases from which to attack Israel.
I misremembered. Israel fired a missile at a hotel in Qatar killing civilians.
If you have a problem with proxies, then Iran has the right to shoot down and occupy most of Europe and Australia as they have been American proxies for long and they are supplying their bases and infrastructure for Americans to launch attacks on Iran from. Iran also as far as I am aware has never sprayed chemical poisons on foreign countries farms to kill their food supply. Israel has.
How many of the Iranian attacks in the gulf were not those fired at American bases and soldiers in those countries?
Are you serious? Literally thousands. Iran hit the international airport in UAE, residential buildings, random 'targets' in cities, and killed more civilians than US service members. I'm honestly not sure where you're getting your news at this point.
Israel did fire at that hotel in Qatar, but considering that the hotel was hosting the entire terrorist leadership of Hamas at the time, it was far less 'random' than what Iran has done. The very fact that Iran was using cluster munitions on civilian areas (in Israel and elsewhere), which is a complete violation of humanitarian laws and a war crime in itself, should tell you what their targets were.
As for your comment on proxies, it's clear that the regime in Iran does consider things this way, but they could have avoided that by doing a simple thing: not declaring war on the US the moment they were founded.
> declaring war on the US the moment they were founded.
Where is that?
The first negative interaction between USA and Iran seems to be the illegal American coup and destroying Iran's democracy to put a dictatorial monarchy.
Then Iranians respond, correctly, by taking action against this treasonous state of matters.
>Israel did fire at that hotel in Qatar, but considering that the hotel was hosting the entire terrorist leadership of Hamas at the time, it was far less 'random' than what Iran has done. The very fact that Iran was using cluster munitions on civilian areas (in Israel and elsewhere), which is a complete violation of humanitarian laws and a war crime in itself, should tell you what their targets were.
There are lots of Israelis working in many places, and most are legally IDF members and or involved in various defense and intelligence companies. Almost every Israeli living anywhere in the world is a valid target for missile and drone strikes and assassinations under this logic.
Egypt gets paid a lot of money by America for "reasons". The gulf arab states are dictatorships so its hard to gauge the actual population's sentiment. These two are still a bit far away. Israel sees borders and country maps as optional things, what military value do you think is there is Israeli thugs under IDF protection barging into and stealing other peoples homes in other countries? They are never content with their border and want to keep expanding.
Oh great proving my point. They get to be at peace and get paid money to do so. Looks like a good deal all around. I guess peace is possible with the surrounding countries after all right?
You forgot my point about Egypt and the gulf countries being dictatorships and the ground sentiment is hard to gauge. You failed to explain what is the military point of Israeli thugs moving into peoples private properties and robbing the land from them. Clearly Israeli is a hyperbelligerent war crazed terrorist who doesn't really believe in peace but wants to expand as far as possible. You failed to disprove that Israel isn't attacking Egypt only because it feels it isn't yet in the position to. Israel so no trouble "forgetting" its borders over several decades and expanding deep into Palestine and now into Syria, Lebanon etc. If Israel is going to rob innocent civilians, then it is a terrorist entity and other countries should rightfully bomb them until they desist.
Whatever the government is of Egypt, it seems quite clear that peace is possible. There is no war with Egypt. Egypt is getting paid a bunch of money. Israel's army is not marching on the capital. It seems like they are at peace.
So the point stands that peace is clearly possible, such as the clear peace that we see between Egypt, Jordan, and Israel.
Why do you think a country that sees borders as optional and just randomly rolls over into sovereign countries lands won't also eventually want to capture Egypt? You also still failed to explain what is the military application of Israeli thugs robbing peoples private houses from them at gun point? And that why this doesn't under any moral or legal system justify shooting and bombing Israelis relentlessly until they are repelled?
Because the countries are working together quite well right now, there is significant economic benefit to peace, and there is little to gained from controlling wide swaths of empty land, when peace and trade is much more profitable. Occupation is expensive and if its possible to maintain strong economic relationships that is much more mutually beneficial then the nonsense that you propose.
You failed to explain how anyone can trust a country that fundamentally doesn't believe in other countries borders and has civilian thugs under IDF protrction barging into private properties and residences of foreigners in foreign countries and robbing the property and shooting the onwers dead can be trusted on...basically anything. It is a government of liars and terrorist ingrates whose word means nothing as it lobs missiles into non enemy nations like America's ships just for kicks.
This whole war is happening because after his easy coup in Venezuela, Trump thought he could just do it again in Iran, and now he can't extricate himself without losing face. And American politicians on both sides of the aisle are subserviant to Israel.
They did make peace with the US. It was a whole thing, papers were signed, agreements were made, they pinky-promised to not make nukes, everyone walked away happy. Except the Israelis, who don't like their regional power status being challenged, and apparently Trump, who... didn't like that the Iranians gave up on their nuclear armament program?
Either way, the US and Iran were at peace right up until we decided to pull out of our disarmament treaty with them. And then executed a decapitation strike against them.
Yep. They "pinky-promised" and continued enriching Uranium to 60%, which is completely unnecessary for any civilian use of nuclear power. Not only has the IAEA openly called it out, but actual officials of the occupying Islamic regime in Iran have now pretty much admitted that they have always been going for nukes. [1] [2]
The only thing JCPOA did was funnel billions into their hands so they could continue oppressing their own population within their own borders, and destabilizing the entire region outside of them.
It is simply common sense for any country not America to build powerful nukes and defenses against America. America has a habit of randomly attacking countries for imaginary or greedy reasons.
> Iranians gave up on their nuclear armament program?
They never gave up. The plan was always to lie and get sanction relief from the West, in order to to sell oil and fund Islamist terrorism throughout the region and the world. It isn't only about the nukes. Fundamentally, this is about containment of a dangerous anti-Western ideology. Same thing in Cuba.
Because Israel isn't the one who, I don't know, has been in open declared war on the US for 47 years ago and has turned "death to America" into its official stated policy. The Islamic Republic is.
Your only defense of the astounding level of evil represented by the occupying regime in Iran is to keep frothing at the mouth about Israel? That shows quite a lot. Try again.
Iran hasn't killed innocent British cizitens and officers in terrorist attacks continually for years. Iran hasn't attacked America. Iranian citizens haven't been as a trend found spying on America and funneling documents to their country for years. Iran isn't randomly expanding into other sovereign countries lands. Iran is shit to its people but it doesn't start random wars into random countries for no reason. Israel does all of the above.
All I see there is either allegations, mischaracterizations, goalposts moving at supersonic speeds, and a wilful ignorance of what the Iranian regime has done re: killing Americans (Beirut 1983? TWA 1985? Dhahran 1996?) and civilians in other countries (Buenos Aires 1992 and 1994, everything Hezbollah has been doing in Lebanon and Syria, etc).
But from the rest of your messages here, it's clear that you despise the US as well, so there are natural ulterior motives to any arguments you make about other countries aligning with or against US interests. When you're hoping for someone to be damaged, then of course you'd try to manipulate them into mistaking enemies for friends and vice versa.
You love lying and putting words into my peoples mouth. I don't despise the USA. I like the USA's ideals, it has to held to the fire to remind itself of its ideals. The US military has after all killed millions of innocents for all its talk of supporting democracy and peace.
How is it not common sense to develop nukes and study American military weak points and develop defenses against American military if you are not America? Especially if you have oil. Either you live a free life and get bombed by America or you become an American slave if you failed to do your homework. American gets weird whims and tends to start bombing random countries whenever they smell oil or a government that wants to go independent. Its healthier for both America and that country that they be independent and not a vassal state or one kowtowing to random American demands.
I looked up Beirut, the so called neutral peacekeeping force was trying to create a theocratic/Christian military entity in Lebanon, in which case its natural to think they are liars and actually invaders pretending to be peacekeepers. The attack hit marines and military people which are all valid targets. Americans killed the entire leadership of Iran so it doesn't seem there is anything wrong in Iran hitting political agents in the embassy either.
Bombing places of worship is evil, you won't have me arguing that. Which is why I find it strange you are not complaining about Israel bombing various churches and Israeli soldiers desecrating Christian icons or Americans countless bombings and "collateral damages".
TWA 1985 isn't Iran, its a Lebanese terror attack. If you want to say Iran pulled the strings, then great, there are countless excellent reasons to target Americans given the endless barrage of proxy forces and bases they have all over the world.
The Dhahran case against seems to have targeted military personnel only which is perfectly valid given American actions in Iran such as the treasonous coup.
I hate Iran, I don't like Iran at all. Unfortunately the problem is Israel, and the actions of American military make Iran look marginally better than either.
Their goals are to survive and control the strait of Ormuz. And they will do both because eventually the US will pull out, because to try to hold the strait is a financial drain. Just like Afghanistan. So it's a waiting game and everyone knows Iran will win. Orange man can say he won every day and after a year, 5 years, 10 years, 50 years eventually the US will have to admit defeat.
> Their goals are to survive and control the strait of Ormuz.
The surrounding states, which have been attacked by Iran and use the strait to export their oil, should grow a pair, close their borders with Iran, and use all the weapons they bought over the years from the U.S. and finish off once and for all the "Islamic Republic." It seems that, at last, the Saudis are stepping up to the plate and doing something about the Houthis. This is all because they did not finish the job last time.
As I just said before, if this was their only goal, they could have had it decades ago by choosing peace instead of funding proxy milita groups en mass.
The fact that they fund all they proxy groups shows that actually yes they have other goals beyond surviving (They they are quickly failing to achieve as their proxy groups get dismantled), and they are actually willing to risk war and risk their survival to attempt to achieve them.
Quite the contrary. It doesn't matter what Iran does: their crime is existing without being under the control of the US. The US installed a puppet regime in Iran in 1953, and had a powerful vassal in the middle east, close to the Soviet Union. They freed themselves in 1979, gaining control of their own resources, and the US never forgave them for it. The only way the US would have allowed them to go on existing without attacking would be for them to become slaves again.
The whole tale of the 1953 supposed US "coup" has been started and amplified by Soviet propaganda, then taken up by the Islamists and their wilful servants, as we can see here. The coup was Mosaddegh's; the Shah prevented it. Read some real history.
As for "freeing" themselves in 1979... please talk to some actual Iranians and ask them how much of their country's resources are actually benefitting them, instead of going to regional terror proxies and into enriching corrupt Mullahs so that their sons and daughters could go live in luxury in the West they so despise. Ask them, too, how "free" they really feel.
How much of the countries resources oil money beforehand was going to Iranians and benefiting them instead of going to a foreign British company? If that is your complain that nothing has changed other than the manager.
JCPOA was horrible. It was a lifeline to the regime and allowed it to build a massive arsenal of drones, ballistic missiles, etc., while it got to keep underground enrichment facilities. That nuclear program did not have a civilian purpose, its sole purpose was projecting power in the region and intimidating Israel.
The only durable way achieve peace in the Mideast is the collapse of Iran and of its regional proxies. Disarming Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis is a necessity before things like rebuilding Gaza is possible at all.
What are Israel's "regional proxies", and how have they been acting against peace in the region in any way that's more destabilizing than Hamas, Hezbollah, Hashd ash-Shaabi, the Houthis, the Fatimioun, the Zainabioun, and all those other tentacles of the occupying Islamic regime in Iran?
Israel has 100+ nuclear weapons dude. And if it was in any real danger of actually being collapsed, I can promise you that it would use them. You better hope that never happens and instead Iran makes peace with them.
Its called mutually assured destruction bro. Every country in the world would use their nukes if they were actually under threat of destruction.
Thats the point of having nukes. For them to be used as a deterent against collapse.
> All the more reason to check
They have the nukes already dude! They aren't going away. They aren't going to be destroyed. And the nukes don't disappear just because funding stops going to them.
The point being, the destruction of Israel would just result in all of their enemies being destroyed along with them, so you better hope it doesn't happen.
Israel doesn't need to be destroyed. The best time to solve the Israeli problem was of course during 1947. Its unfortunate that Britain got so weak at that point, ideally they should have instituted a militant zero tolerance marshal law there and shot on sight any Israeli or Arab terrorist. Israel can still be peacefully south africaed.
They aren't going to massively change their demographics. They will never agree to that, and they would have to be invaded to achieve anything close to that. Which brings up back to them haveing 100+ nuclear weapons.
This goal of destroying israel, or massively changing their demographics has caused hundreds of thousands of arabs to die, over and over again, wasting on a doomed goal, seeing as Israel has a modern military and nuclear weapons that they would absolutely use if their military was at risk of being defeat.
The actual peaceful solutions look something like Jordan or Egypt, which are perfectly able to be at peace.
Its not about arabs. I said south africa to mean hardline global sanctions and refusal to trade. If they want to nuke everyone just because people don't like trading with them, they are free to demonstrate their psychosis. Public opinion in the USA is changing, who knows what the future holds. If US support vanishes, Israel will have to scale down their hyperterrorism by a lot.
Again, the best solution would have been if Britain had refused to budge against Zionist terrorist attacks on innocent Brits, and instead prosecuted and executed them brutally, instituted a ruthless and militant martial rule there and shot all agitators on sight, and also done things like tax breaks for mixed marriages, etc. Since that golden opportunity for sanity and stability is gone, we have to see what the current options are.
> If they want to nuke everyone just because people don't like trading with them
Nobody is going to nuke people over trade.
But, if the only thing that happens is that there are trade sanctions, well seeing as Israel considers changing up their country's demographics an existential threat, well it isn't going to end the state of Israel and nothing short of military action will cause that to happen.
Its certainly possible to motivate Israel to make some changes, but its not going to let itself be destroyed, nor will it ever accept 10 million immigrants into the country, and there would have to be military action to every make that happen.
The point being, Israel isn't going away. Its not going to be destroy. And if it was every a real threat, well they'd use the nukes.
Peace is certainly possible though. If the only thing you want is for both the existing middle east militant groups and Israel to stop fighting each other, and everyone exists where they are today, then great that peace is absolutely possible.
Who said it has to accept immigrants? How can immigrants accept other immigrants? They just have to self deport back to their original countries. The point of a blockade is if others feel unsatisfied they can keep blockading them, including if some countries wishes, completely closing off their land and sea borders to Israel. What they do next is not my concern. Its their self created mess to solve. And if they want to use nukes over such an insane point, then the world far outnumbers them in nuke count and many countries have second strike capabilities. Something worth remembering.
>Peace is certainly possible though. If the only thing you want is for both the existing middle east militant groups and Israel to stop fighting each other, and everyone exists where they are today, then great that peace is absolutely possible.
It is, and under current situations its only going to happen if Israel is occupied by a brutal external military force that uses complete merciless totalitarian approach to any terrorism from any side. Nothing short of that is a peaceful solution unfortunately.
> They just have to self deport back to their original countries.
No actually. They would rather fight till the end than be ethnically cleansed (the vast majority of people being born there). They will never do that, and it would require military action to get anywhere close to that.
At which point it brings us back to the fact that they have a modern military and nuclear weapons, so military action won't work.
> What they do next is not my concern
Well, if peace isn't possible what would almost certainly happen is that most of the Palestinians will be kicked out. I mean, if it is that or them being kicked out, like what you propose, obviously they will fight to win.
> Nothing short of that is a peaceful solution unfortunately.
Oh I fully agree that the arab population isn't going to stop fighting. What is almost certainly going to happen is that peace won't happen and Israel will simply Win The Conflict, by exporting most of the gazan population.
I mean, the rest of the world is barely doing anything against them. They have little reason not to at this point, if peace isn't possible.
Which is sad, but hey. Thats war. It is unfortunate though just how many arab lives have been scarificed for nothing though, failing to achieve an impossible goal. Impossible because Israel is never going to let itself be destroy nor ethnically cleansed, and the rest of the world is barely doing anything against it, and, you know that modern military + nuclear weapons.
> And if they want to use nukes over such an insane point
Nukes would only be used in the case of a military invasion that seriously threatens them. If its just trade embargoes, and local militant conflicts, Israel would simply weather the storm, and/or kick out all the palestinians if they don't stop throwing their lives away for nothing.
> then the world far outnumbers
The rest of the world isn't doing shit right now dude. And the point is that no invasion is going to happen of Israel, precisely because of the nuclear weapons. Nobody is going to nuke anyway, nor will any other countries take action, and if the palestinians keep fighting for nothing the end result is that they will probably just be kicked out pretty soon.
Obviously peace isn't possible due to a country of violent terrorist ingrates who stole Birtish land and have the temerity to claim they are natives to a land whose legal ownership is rightfully British and whose de facto ownership has been that of arabs and turks for centuries. Other than the 6% or so of land parcels where zionists legally migrated, every other area is Israel is illicitly squatted. Which again circles back to British weakness causing this mess. Two big blunders, gifting their land to random east european foreigners, and secondly to cave in to their violent terrorism and mass murder of innocent British in the King David Hotel Bombing, Sergeants Affair etc. By all rights Britain had the moral right to completely raze the terrorists and their supporters and shoot down the invading ships. But British turned pussy due to being weakned by WW2.
You better hope it is. Because if peace never happens, Israel is going to win and all the palestinians will be kicked out, and the rest of the world isn't going to do anything about it.
I mean, people are already calling it a genocide, so if peace isn't possible, just kicking out all of the palestinians seems like the most likely outcome here. And the more fighting that happens, the more arabs will die for nothing.
Obviously, how do you think oeace is possible with a perpetually ingrate lying terrorist country like Israel. Indeed palestinians and lebanense and aoon egyptians will probably be cleansed. Other than brutal military occupation of Israel and merciless martial law nothing will work.
Why do you love a country of thugs and robbers who hate others private property and murdered thiusands of innocent British citizens?
It is simply common sense for any country that is not the USA to develop nukes against the USA. It doesn't matter what your morality is or if you are a dictatorship or democracy, the USA just gets strange ideas and starts shooting and bombing random countries sometimes.
Mostly yes. Just a small correction - Iran does not need to collapse; its occupying Islamic regime does. It's what has already driven Iran into pretty much a state of collapse already; when it's gone Iran can be rebuilt.
If Israel stopped randomly invading sovereign countries and launching missiles anywhere and everywhere into unrelated foreign countries like Dubai, spraying chemical toxins on farms in random countries, then real peace could have been achieved.
That's true: Obama bucked the trend. Overall, there were still many powerful interests in the US who despised Iran waiting to take power. I'd still call it just a matter of time.
You are going to go back a whole 70 years to make your point? Isn't it time to get over it?
All the surrounding governments are at peace with everyone else. Iran could have had the same thing if it wanted. All it had to do what stop funding proxy militant groups.
The US government is perfectly able to make peace with countries like Egypt and Jordan. Because those countries aren't funding proxy groups to destabilize the region.
As soon as Iran stops shooting missiles at tankers and stops funding militant groups, peace would be achieved.
Why is it America's business? If Iranians and Israelis want to kill each other they are free to, why should American resources and lives be wasted in irrelevant foreign wars.
