USA and Iran Conflict

[Jill 31,812]

5 minutes ago, PartySick said:

But would she have done so with military strikes or by reopening diplomatic relations like Obama did. That's the question.

Obama blatantly bombed Libya and turned one of Africa's most thriving economies into an open-air slave market overnight, in violation of all kinds of international laws.

If Obama did nothing hostile against Iran during his tenure, it was because at that time there were other actors the US considered more important. Those actors fell over the years, always due to the direct influence of the US war machine: Libya is just one example among many others that happened during Obama's years and also under Republican administrations.

Had she been elected president, Kamala would have considered turning Iran into a new Libya without even thinking twice, and I have no doubt about that.

[Morphine Prince 109,709]

19 minutes ago, PartySick said:

I am curious how Kamala would have handled this situation. She seemed much more willing to tell Netanyahu to sit down but I wonder if the pressure of "defending" Israel would have been too great regardless of who was in the white house.

From the article posted above by Jill:

"Harris was asked whether she would use military force to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon, but she said she would not discuss hypotheticals." 

I'd like to believe Harris would continue diplomacy talks, but you never know. During the Biden area they were unsuccessful with them, but they did choose to maintain Trump's sanctions. 

[PartySick 172,975]

Just now, Jill said:

Obama blatantly bombed Libya and turned one of Africa's most thriving economies into an open-air slave market overnight, in violation of all kinds of international laws.

If Obama did nothing hostile against Iran during his tenure, it was because at that time there were other actors the US considered more important. Those actors fell over the years, always due to the direct influence of the US war machine: Libya is just one example among many others that happened during Obama's years and also under Republican administrations.

Had she been elected president, Kamala would have considered turning Iran into a new Libya without even thinking twice, and I have no doubt about that.

 

Just now, Morphine Prince said:

From the article posted above by Jill:

"Harris was asked whether she would use military force to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon, but she said she would not discuss hypotheticals." 

I'd like to believe Harris would continue diplomacy talks, but you never know. During the Biden area they were unsuccessful with them, but they did choose to maintain Trump's sanctions. 

Yeah, could be. I mean, American leadership always loves war time regardless  

I just like to think that she would have had an easier time reigning in Israel. Trump told them not to attack, they did anyway.

Kamala could have been like "US military aid to Israel is contingent on you not pulling us into another conflict. Let our diplomats do the work and if that doesn't go well, we'll reevaluate" or some sh*t and Netanyahu couldn't be sure she would fold.

'Cause we all know Trump only attacked Iran to save face after Israel blatantly disobeyed him. Kamala isn't that weak.

Kind of a useless hypothetical though, but I do hope she's asked about how she would have handled it some day

Anyway, back to reality

[Jill 31,812]

16 minutes ago, PartySick said:

Trump told them not to attack, they did anyway.

That's deception 101. Trump also said he was going to wait two weeks to decide what to do, but he launched a surprise attack on Iran nevertheless. Trump is not trustworthy and never was. For all we know, the attack on Iran was premeditated in conjunction with the US, since Israel on its own cannot defend itself, and such an inexcusable provocation toward a peaceful country could only create hostility in the region, an hostility potentially so great that Israel would have to act in conjunction with the Americans in a greater capacity than normal.

20 minutes ago, PartySick said:

'Cause we all know Trump only attacked Iran to save face after Israel blatantly disobeyed him. Kamala isn't that weak.

This is a very deep simplification of the matter. The geopolitics of an entire country, let alone a world power like the US, is not based on the simple whims of a single person. There is a complex system of interests, classes, and intertwined power behind every decision and statement.

Since this system remains in place regardless of whether Trump is president or not, it is fair to think that the decisions would not be very different if Kamala had won, except perhaps for a different communication strategy. Trump is not trying to "save face". Israel is not rebellious and never was. Trump and the US ruling class knew everything all along.

There is a reason why Iran has historically referred to the US as the "Great Satan" and to Israel as the "Little Satan": there is a reciprocal relationship between the two through which Israel is truly the defender of American interests in the Middle East, which is why it could not "be rebellious" or authorize military conflicts without first consulting or reaching an agreement with its main financier. To think otherwise would be excessively idealistic.

[faysalaaa 5,341]

Its insane that some people here think Democrats would be better in this issue. Trump is worse but in this issue they are the same, and he might even be better.

[Emvee 8,845]

Do we need a ****ing reminder that Democrats had negotiated a deal with Iran? 
 

And Trump was the one who ripped that to shreds. 
 

And the antagonization of Iran started because poor little, inoffensive UK and the US was kicked out of exploiting their oil and their puppet was overthrown. Republicans goon to the idea of controlling more oil. Democrats had been moving towards renewable energy for more than a decade now. The country that has existed before the Roman Empire was even an idea is not going anywhere. The US (Republicans) cannot expect to push it around like it has with Iraq, Syria, and Libya. Mind you, those conflicts were still a disaster for the US. They can try to regime change, but the people of Iran will REJECT any western backed government. That much is sure. Iran is not some oil-backed Arab country that barely has civil society. 

[River 127,746]

Hello allies 

Are u ready to commit some war crimes together? 

[Gabi001 2,470]

Am I only one glad that soneone is finally preventing a authoritarian theocracy (which was constantly lying, threatening other countries, opressing and killing its own people and showing that the life has no value for them) from getting nuclear bombs? Even Iranian migrants that fled the country are supporting this. I'm really sorry for all killed people, and I definitely don't want a war, but we've seen how diplomatic solutions ended up in 1939 with Hitler and Stalin... Once your opponent wants to destroy you and is ready to give his life for it, you can't make just a diplomatic deal and have everlasting peace. 

[Monstermilo 5,473]

1 hour ago, faysalaaa said:

Its insane that some people here think Democrats would be better in this issue. Trump is worse but in this issue they are the same, and he might even be better.

HOW IS TRUMP A LITTLE BETTER? WHAT 

[Mars 2,663]

18 minutes ago, Gabi001 said:

Am I only one glad that soneone is finally preventing a authoritarian theocracy (which was constantly lying, threatening other countries, opressing and killing its own people and showing that the life has no value for them) from getting nuclear bombs? Even Iranian migrants that fled the country are supporting this. I'm really sorry for all killed people, and I definitely don't want a war, but we've seen how diplomatic solutions ended up in 1939 with Hitler and Stalin... Once your opponent wants to destroy you and is ready to give his life for it, you can't make just a diplomatic deal and have everlasting peace. 

So to escalate the situation is the best thing to do?

Diplomacy works and treaties work.

 

[faysalaaa 5,341]

18 minutes ago, Monstermilo said:

HOW IS TRUMP A LITTLE BETTER? WHAT 

Well with Democrats we know 100% we will get a war for decades, but with Trump its unpredictable and changeable, he might not go with what is expected from a war criminal.

Just imagine how scary it would be if Hilary Clinton was in charge, and announced a war in the Middle East!

[Gabi001 2,470]

1 minute ago, Mars said:

So to escalate the situation is the best thing to do?

Diplomacy works and treaties work.

 

I'm just saying that there are situation, when diplomacy and treaties doesn't work. Iran has lied about fulfilling treaties. Allies thought they prevented WW2 with treaties with Hitler in 1939. Ukraine thought they prevented war with Budapest treaties. Unfortunately, some countries (usually with autocratic and terrorist regimes) lie. 

[doppelganger 4,021]

The West sure loves its wars

[Mars 2,663]

1 minute ago, Gabi001 said:

I'm just saying that there are situation, when diplomacy and treaties doesn't work. Iran has lied about fulfilling treaties. Allies thought they prevented WW2 with treaties with Hitler in 1939. Ukraine thought they prevented war with Budapest treaties. Unfortunately, some countries (usually with autocratic and terrorist regimes) lie. 

This is the same playbook they used to start the US-Iraq war which infact was totally illegal and had no credible basis.

When you describe terrorist states please note that you are describing Israel also. An authoritarian state claiming self defence after killing innocent civilians and bombing neighbouring countries is a lie and inflammatory to the rest of the region and the world. 

The diplomacy has to come from all sides.

[InTheCloset 21,796]

The fact that its geriatric men making decisions who wont be around to face the consequences of their actions. Im speechless