While I respect you honestly trying to make the case, what's the point for the US (i.e. in addition to Israel) to do so? It seems like whatever Needs To Be Done, Israel is both capable (so far?) of doing it, and also has a major advantage over us: a more accurate, regional self-interest in a regime that can't hurt them.
Particularly in Iran, perhaps more than any other country, US-backed regime changes (and the local opinion of those who appear too influenced by them) have.... a bad reputation. If you want a non-bad Iranian opposition to gain power in the eyes of the rest of the citizenry, I don't think adding "supported by the United States" to their resume is going to help.
This case, it is just better (for US interests) to let this kind of thing play out on its own.
I believe the needed U. S. involvement is all about heavy bombing capacity. Israel does not have B2s or the bomb tech that takes out deep bunkers buried in mountains. Annihilation of the nuclear program would be the sole official goal. Hanania's musings would be a happy byproduct.
I'm not sure I believe the public statements about that capability. It seems very strange that Israel, who has access to, or the capability to develop that weaponry as well, and who obviously considers "Iranian nuclear program" to be an existential issue, would not have developed that capacity in case their ally was unable or unwilling to deploy it.
Also, they have their own nuclear weapons/digging-tools.
Not sure what you don't believe. No Israeli jets can carry a 30k pound bomb, and they don't have the resources or ability to build such a bomber. We have never sold them (or anyone else) a B-2 (or any other strategic bomber).
They have developed bunker buster bombs (MPR 500) but they are not sufficiently powerful to penetrate Fordow - that's why Fordow was constructed as deeply as it is in the first place.
And I hope you can see why "use a nuke so America doesn't have to use its B-2" isn't a great proposal. Using a nuke would (rightly) make Israel an pariah state forever and risk long-term US / Western support.
I am not doubting the specifics of bomber or bomb design or what we have or have not sold them. I am doubting the higher level idea that Israel does not have any capability to destroy an identified Iranian nuclear site without US assistance, because not having that capability doesn't seem to fit with the other facts and decisions Israel is making.
Maybe I'm wrong, but it would be extremely strange for Israel to leave "doing something they believe would be necessary to prevent the deaths of millions of their citizens" to a potentially unreliable ally.
Yeah. Overthrowing the ayatollahs would be great but maybe Israel can just do it for us. I also agree with you that this idea that maybe Israel needs us to bomb Fordow is disinformation.
there's also a big difference in how the Iranian population would feel about it, if there were some plausible deniability that remains "oh Israel is retaliating against Iran's government, not actually TRYING for regime change, but if you noble Iranian opposition parties, you know, WANTED to .... set up some kind of .... new regime... then sure yeah that might be something that could happen, but uh, without our specific involvement or responsibility."
A destroyed power leaves a vacuum. If America doesn't work to fill it, someone else will. Israel's interests are similar to ours, but they are certainly not the same. The best thing for our interests will always be the thing we seek out to achieve for ourselves.
I don't think any of these are good heuristics for establishing US policy in this region.
We are talking about Iran here, a country whose extremely anti-American regime exists because they felt America had too much power/influence in their country. I do not think trying again, but with more bombs, will have a better result.
It was hardly a natural development. It came about as a result of the Soviets intervening to destabilize the Persian Crown. They were just outfoxed by the Islamists.
We have no reason not to interfere to protect and expand our interests. The Islamic Republic has been nothing but a menace to the Earth. Toppling it and replacing it with a constitutional monarchy will be a good thing.
It’s been a long time since ive read anything so foolish. Your argument that “North Korea would certainly be better off with a civil war”…how can you be so sure of that? Regime change without chaotic civil war is possible. You, David Frum and the war cheerleaders espouse poison but do not bear any consequences for your ideas.
Regime change without civil war doesn't happen in regimes whose legitimacy is based solely on terrorizing their populous into submission. Even the fall of the USSR was hardly free of violence. It's just the regime had grown to anemic to sustain itself.
And we absolutely would've been better off committing to the Siberian Expedition and massacring the bolshies to a man. We lost far more men in the subsequent wars we fought as a result of allowing the Soviet cancer to metastisize, and are still dealing with the mess they left behind to this day.
Great article. I find it reflects badly on anti interventionists that they talk about Iraq and Afghanistan but ignore Panama, S Korea, Croatia, Grenada, W Germany, Japan.
S Korea was intervening to prop up a government, like a more successful version of US intervention in Vietnam. That country spent a long time under (anti-communist) dictatorship, but again that didn't necessitate US intervention.
If anything, our issue with Vietnam was in not being more aggressive. China was extremely weak in the '60s, having lost tens of millions from their self-inflicted agricultural-collectivisation famine, not to mention the Cultural Revolution they'd have midway through. There was no reason we couldn't have pushed to take Hanoi.
The French had Hanoi, then they lost it. When Americans ceased being willing to die for the Vietnamese, Saigon fell... and what were the consequences for America? "Domino theory" made some sense earlier, but communism didn't continue past Indochina. It was crushed in Indonesia by Suharto in 1965-1966, just a couple years after the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. Similarly, America left Afghanistan after decades, and what did we lose as a result?
It DID continue past Indochina. It spread into Laos, where it stays to this day, and Cambodia, whose successor government was founded by and shot through with Khmer Rougeists.
And the fact that's Suharto's murder campaign stopped the spread of communism is if anything the single best argument in favor of the domino theory. Communists only ever stopped when their bayonets hit steel.
Why doesn’t Richard Hanania, along with all the other bored psychopathic lunatics, take up gardening or model airplane building or something, anything, and save the rest of us having to constantly navigate their bizarre Napoleonic fantasies where they take turns at pressing the button for the good of humanity? What is the problem with these people? Were they not breastfed? Did somebody take way their favourite stuffy? Maybe an unsightly blemish during adolescence? Enough already.
No. It is always best to assume with total certainty the unquestionable accuracy of our worst fears and therefore must immediately take the most drastic actions imaginable, including massive sneak attacks capable of triggering global thermonuclear annihilation of an entire planet, because the risk of not taking such rash action is 100% certain and immediate destruction, because the people we are dealing with are not really people at all, care about no one, not even their own grandchildren, and have no ability to act rationally even to preserve their own existence because they are a cult bent not just on genocide, but suicide, and therefore cannot be reasoned with in the interest of mutual survival as they care only about reward after death and not life here on earth, despite living in luxury penthouses which is an obvious ruse, so there is no point in even trying to talk except via threats, because they only understand the language of violence, despite not caring (as mentioned above) a whit about their earthly survival but only the afterlife, which is not at all contradictory, and therefore anyone who claims that talking first before attacking might be productive is either lying or just misguided and is delaying the inevitable as evidenced by the fact that this existential and imminent danger has been going on for over 45 years, which again is not at all contradictory. Rather we must act yesterday, even last week as we have, and keep acting, because once we have acted, it is too late to stop acting and assess the wisdom of our actions, even if events are unfolding differently that we expected, because again these are not rational actors we are dealing with and so talking is pointless. These are the undeniable and irrefutable lessons of history, most notably 20th century history, as exemplified by the lion and greatest and wisest statesman of the 20th century, maybe any century, Sir Winston Churchill who was adamant that one must never talk to one’s implacable enemy, that one should never “jaw, jaw” but should always immediately “war, war”, because, as should be clear by now, talking is always pointless and risks only total destruction, whereas first taking actions that can and often do lead to total destruction and annihilation is the only rational way to stave off total destruction and annihilation.
Implying the war stopping or starting has anything to do with what the likes of YOU want? Or that there's any legitimacy in cowing ourselves to a group of barely-functional kakistocrats who are mortally threatened by the site of women's hair?
Who is cowing? The world is full of ridiculous people. Best to ignore, avoid, or make peace with them, if possible. If one cannot or will not due to proximity or other cause, then at least try not to flatter them with imitation. But do not expect others with lives far removed to join in the fray, or gleefully delight at the thought of having to do so.
Only if you and every neocon policy wonk volunteer for the front lines. Risk your lives for universal democracy and free markets beyond social media posting.
There are a lot more of us veterans in the neocon camp than in the anti-interventionist camp. Our military didn't start having recruitment problems until after the war was over, there are always plenty of Americans willing to put their money where their mouth is and fight for their beliefs.
Kurdistan became relatively autonomous in the aftermath of the Gulf War. It didn't require destroying central Iraqi authority, just limiting Saddam's ability to project power there.
Yes. In the wake of a successful regime change, I can see at least significant separatist pressures in the Kurdish and Azeri areas of Iran. The Turks would be pleased about the later and a lot less so about the former!
"The idea that existing regimes should continue forever no matter how brutal to their own people and threatening to the world also cannot be the answer. Such a rule would have never allowed the Soviet Union to collapse."
No one ever espoused that idea. Who ever suggested we prop up regimes we don't like just to keep them going forever just because? No one. If they fall apart on their own, that's great. It's also not an intervention.
"Civil war would clearly be an improvement over the current North Korean regime, as there would be some hope of a better future."
As long as the nukes don't start flying, maybe.
That said, I agree that the case for intervention to depose the Iranian regime is stronger than most. Or at least drop some MOABs on their nuke bunkers, if that is likely to work. And I say that as someone who opposes most interventions.
I think you are slightly pessimistic to see the regime and Islamists as the same, most conservative ayatollahs are opposed to the Shah, modernity and the regime. Khomeinism is a firm break with traditional Shi'ism and many leading clerics are openly opposed to the regime.
>In the end, something like this strategy eventually worked in Syria, where the US both stopped the Assad regime from crushing its opponents, and also made sure that Islamists would not take over the country. We didn’t have natural allies anywhere except among the Kurds, but stumbled towards a policy that ultimately helped ensure that a relatively tolerant leader would come to power due to the fact that we consistently opposed actors that we found unacceptable.
Syria was a decade plus long conflict that only got resolved after half a million people were killed and millions fled the country as refugees. Trotting this out as a positive example is sociopathic.
When the government falls, a brutal civil war commences, and factions of the 200,000+ Basij paramilitaries take over and vie for power, it will be the 2009 Green Revolutionary types and Mahsa Amini liberals —the ones that western hawks always pretended to give a crap about—that will be the first to be lined up against the wall. Remember that.
From the HBD perspective, one can note that Iranians are "Aryan" speaking an Indo-European language and are therefore more inherently inclined to the sensibilities of Western Europeans than the Semitic Arabs are!
"I'm not surprised by the number of traitors in Iran. Hatred of the regime runs so deep, even within the state apparatus.
This is precisely why a state must respect the rights of its citizens. Otherwise, it ends up becoming a "Mossadian Republic," as Iran has become: a state hated by its own people, or by a large portion of them.
That said, all is not lost for the mullahs, especially if Israel makes the mistake of striking civilian areas and causing casualties among the population."
1) North Koreans have it (correctly) ingrained that the Americans went out of their way to kill 33% of civilians during the Korean War
2) The US put in a shitty Shah that was also "dictatorial" and "mean" (lmao)
3) People really don't like when the "enemy" puts in some party ... it removes the new party's credibility by default
4) Lots of people, though they not be white, aren't stupid and know wtf the US has done in foreign policy since 1930 (the real start of the J**** terrorist gangs in P******).
1) Overstated number (likely more like 10-15%) and hyperbolic to say US "went out of its way" - it conducted area bombing and tolerated civilian casualties in line with bombing campaigns in Germany and Japan in WWII
Also what does this have to do with anything? Are you saying that justifies the Kim dynasty?
2) Certainly true but he was a better alternative for the average Iranian than the Ayatollah - he oversaw economic modernization, women's rights and greater stability than they have seen since. 88% of Iranians want regime change now.
Furthermore this is a false dichotomy - the choice is not between Shah and Ayatollah, but between Ayatollah and a hope for a secular constitutional republic.
3) This is what elections are for
4) Unclear what your point is - but it seems the Iranians are welcoming both US and Israeli (assume that's what you meant with J**** even though that has the wrong number of asterisks) attacks on the regime in Iran, so not sure they would agree with you
you westerners love to project as if everyone is like you. "secular" as if its an end goal everyone should have.
where the hell is your point #4? every time a population is attacked, u ytpipo really think non-white people like getting bombed and will welcome the "virtuous white man" with open arms. you better stick your dick out and show some proof. shit or get off the pot.
i'm no ayatollah fan per say, but as pluralistic and open a society the Persians have always been, from Medo-Persian / Cyrus the Great to King Darius to today, your projection on what the dirty sand************* (or how many ever asterisks there are) should want is quite hilarious. do you project the same way on the people you deal with on a day to day?
Do you think the Ayatollah leads or wants a "pluralistic and open society"? You're strawmanning by implying Richard or anyone here is asking for a Western takeover of Iran, when no one is asking for Western boots on the ground.
The wishes of the Iranian people have been subverted and crushed by the current regime - there is a desire for an Iranian-led, ethnically diverse, pluralistic democratic model. That's why there are giant protests in Iran every few years, or you can look at the polls.
You should instead argue that toppling the regime is too great a risk or not our problem - those are reasonable arguments - unlike whatever you're trying to type out through your apparently ongoing stroke.
those 2022 protests weren't lost on me. if the mossad really wished to bring Iran into the fold, not blast the Persian people, from the Medo-Persian to Khwa(however you spell it) to Sassanian, to absolute US-led genocide, there was an Arab Spring moment.
How much do you believe that Tehran wants to nuke NYC? You must be a Bibi/ Will Chamberlain / Eylon Levy shill.
and for the record ... Russia rallied around the flag. Ukraine. Imperial Japan. Nazi Germany. Literally damn near every country post attack. 9-11? I was a toddler / infant at the time. This mystical dissent you wish to appear doesn't exist buddy.
I don't have to think Iran wants to nuke NYC (or even Tel Aviv!) to think that an authoritarian religious fundamentalist government possessing nukes is a bad thing for the world (and for their own people, who would never be able to overthrow them as is now the case in N. Korea).
If you can't agree with that you've lost the plot.
Plenty of examples that did not see clear "rally around the flag" too - Libya, Kosovo, Syria, Afghanistan... Again I think it is very valid to ask "what happens post-Ayatollah", but saying that the Iranian people are happy with the status quo is not correct. And a nuclear-armed government is even worse for the population.
Only thing we somewhat agree on is that the Iranian regime isn't very popular. Giving them a rally around the flag, when the Iranian population (surprise) aren't fucking retards and realize what the Jews want to happen to Iran and themselves (Libya + some people literally dying / getting sold to slavery), is like the LAST thing you'd want.
Again ... very pro-Iraq war. How many people are dead? ISIS (which seems to be a Western creation)? The Arab Spring --> Syrian Civil War / migrant crisis?
You want more dirty hijabis in your town? Either kill all of them or no war. There are two choices.
*edit*: also, what's the Tulsi thing about Iran no weapon? It would take years for them? Besides, for their own existence, they should've been sprinting to a nuke since 1979. Would've avoided this shit. No negotiating with Obama because the neocon deep state runs all.
Mohammad Reza Pahlavi inherited the throne from his father, Reza Shah, in 1941. The US had nothing to do with that. Reza Shah ruled since 1925. Reza Shah's reign ended when he was forced to abdicate by the British after the Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran in 1941.
The Pahlavi dynasty was the latest dynasty in the Persian monarchy that goes back 2500 years.
Mohammad Reza Pahlavi inherited the throne from his father, Reza Shah, in 1941. The US had nothing to do with that. Reza Shah ruled since 1925. Reza Shah's reign ended when he was forced to abdicate by the British after the Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran in 1941.
The Pahlavi dynasty was the latest dynasty in the Persian monarchy that goes back 2500 years.
we just gonna ignore Mohamed Mossadegh here? and British Petroleum / CIA involvement? Come on man, don't tell me a whitewashed, pro-West version of history buddy.
No, I am merely stating the obvious fact that the Shah was in power long before 1953, and other Shahs had ruled in Persia for 2500 years. You will be more persuasive to other people if you are correct about facts.
I never said anything “pro-West” in my comment.
The Shah appointed Mossadegh to be Prime Minister on 28 April 1951 (i.e ten years after the Shah had inherited his throne in 1941). The British Petroleum/CIA involvement to pressure the Shah to unappoint Mossadegh was 2 years later. He might well have done so anyway, as he was no big fan of Mossadegh.
It was an important event but it occurred 12 years after the Shah came to power. The Iranian Shah was never a figurehead like the current British king. The Shah had serious political power long before 1953. The Shad had the power to:
Appoint and dismiss ministers
Propose legislation
Veto legislation
Declare war
Commander in chief of the armed forces
It is important to know because many people are incorrect about the basic facts of the event.
OK, I do not know much about pre-Mossadegh, post-Mughal Iran, so you called my bluff there.
Still, Shah was put in place because him + his ruling class would be more amenable to Western business interests (which is the reason why Socialists / Communists get blasted by the US).
I guess I don't really have a trifle here. Apologies for my aggression.
Apology accepted, but to be clear the Shah was never “put it place.” It was an inherited title that goes back 2500 years (i.e long before Western business interests or Socialists/Communists).
It might be fair to use the term in 1941 when the UK and USSR invaded neutral Iran to force it to be used a transit point for military aid from West to the USSR during WW2.
It is not clear to me why the UK and USSR preferred the young Pahlavi over the old Pahlavi, but they apparently forced him to abdicate in favor of his son. This act did not change the power of the Shah, only the person who held it.
> While cavalierly going around the world knocking off governments can’t be the right approach, the idea that existing regimes should continue forever no matter how brutal to their own people and threatening to the world also cannot be the answer.
The whole essay is premised on this false dichotomy. Bad regimes can end due to a) internal collapse b) insurrection c) intervention by non-US countries, none of which require US intervention. Opposing US involvement in this particular conflict means the US ought not overthrow this particular government, not that all bad regimes should be permanent, nor even that the US should never overthrow any foreign government.
I’m for sending the B2 and the bunker buster. No matter what regime is there when the dust settles, they won’t have the means to get back to this point in nuke weapon development for a long time. Iran with nukes is a direct threat, not insofar as a ICBM, but in sending little packages in the backpacks of their willing possum of martyrs.
I’m less sanguine about doing anything overt wrt regime change. It doesn’t have to be Iraq 2.0; the Shah 2.0 is bad enough. Sure we may play favorites but I would not want to put too many fingers on the scales.
While I respect you honestly trying to make the case, what's the point for the US (i.e. in addition to Israel) to do so? It seems like whatever Needs To Be Done, Israel is both capable (so far?) of doing it, and also has a major advantage over us: a more accurate, regional self-interest in a regime that can't hurt them.
Particularly in Iran, perhaps more than any other country, US-backed regime changes (and the local opinion of those who appear too influenced by them) have.... a bad reputation. If you want a non-bad Iranian opposition to gain power in the eyes of the rest of the citizenry, I don't think adding "supported by the United States" to their resume is going to help.
This case, it is just better (for US interests) to let this kind of thing play out on its own.
I believe the needed U. S. involvement is all about heavy bombing capacity. Israel does not have B2s or the bomb tech that takes out deep bunkers buried in mountains. Annihilation of the nuclear program would be the sole official goal. Hanania's musings would be a happy byproduct.
I'm not sure I believe the public statements about that capability. It seems very strange that Israel, who has access to, or the capability to develop that weaponry as well, and who obviously considers "Iranian nuclear program" to be an existential issue, would not have developed that capacity in case their ally was unable or unwilling to deploy it.
Also, they have their own nuclear weapons/digging-tools.
Not sure what you don't believe. No Israeli jets can carry a 30k pound bomb, and they don't have the resources or ability to build such a bomber. We have never sold them (or anyone else) a B-2 (or any other strategic bomber).
They have developed bunker buster bombs (MPR 500) but they are not sufficiently powerful to penetrate Fordow - that's why Fordow was constructed as deeply as it is in the first place.
And I hope you can see why "use a nuke so America doesn't have to use its B-2" isn't a great proposal. Using a nuke would (rightly) make Israel an pariah state forever and risk long-term US / Western support.
I am not doubting the specifics of bomber or bomb design or what we have or have not sold them. I am doubting the higher level idea that Israel does not have any capability to destroy an identified Iranian nuclear site without US assistance, because not having that capability doesn't seem to fit with the other facts and decisions Israel is making.
Maybe I'm wrong, but it would be extremely strange for Israel to leave "doing something they believe would be necessary to prevent the deaths of millions of their citizens" to a potentially unreliable ally.
Claire Berlinski had a good post about the war the other day, with an extended discussion of why Israel does not have this capacity.
fair enough, though again, I repeat, I meant "any capacity" not just "specifically a B2 dropping a BB".
edit: I assume you mean this article?
https://claireberlinski.substack.com/p/israels-strike-on-iran-part-ii
I would pull out this quote:
"Perhaps Israel has another plan for Fordow? They have air superiority. They can make as many sorties as they need. "
Once you can fly around a country with impunity there are lots of potential capacities you could have.
Yeah. Overthrowing the ayatollahs would be great but maybe Israel can just do it for us. I also agree with you that this idea that maybe Israel needs us to bomb Fordow is disinformation.
there's also a big difference in how the Iranian population would feel about it, if there were some plausible deniability that remains "oh Israel is retaliating against Iran's government, not actually TRYING for regime change, but if you noble Iranian opposition parties, you know, WANTED to .... set up some kind of .... new regime... then sure yeah that might be something that could happen, but uh, without our specific involvement or responsibility."
A destroyed power leaves a vacuum. If America doesn't work to fill it, someone else will. Israel's interests are similar to ours, but they are certainly not the same. The best thing for our interests will always be the thing we seek out to achieve for ourselves.
I don't think any of these are good heuristics for establishing US policy in this region.
We are talking about Iran here, a country whose extremely anti-American regime exists because they felt America had too much power/influence in their country. I do not think trying again, but with more bombs, will have a better result.
It was hardly a natural development. It came about as a result of the Soviets intervening to destabilize the Persian Crown. They were just outfoxed by the Islamists.
We have no reason not to interfere to protect and expand our interests. The Islamic Republic has been nothing but a menace to the Earth. Toppling it and replacing it with a constitutional monarchy will be a good thing.
it is possible there are some intervening steps to that plan that might prove slightly difficult to accomplish
In this case, we do have something with which we can fill the vacuum. Restore the Shah to the Peacock Throne.
It’s been a long time since ive read anything so foolish. Your argument that “North Korea would certainly be better off with a civil war”…how can you be so sure of that? Regime change without chaotic civil war is possible. You, David Frum and the war cheerleaders espouse poison but do not bear any consequences for your ideas.
Regime change without civil war doesn't happen in regimes whose legitimacy is based solely on terrorizing their populous into submission. Even the fall of the USSR was hardly free of violence. It's just the regime had grown to anemic to sustain itself.
And we absolutely would've been better off committing to the Siberian Expedition and massacring the bolshies to a man. We lost far more men in the subsequent wars we fought as a result of allowing the Soviet cancer to metastisize, and are still dealing with the mess they left behind to this day.
Great article. I find it reflects badly on anti interventionists that they talk about Iraq and Afghanistan but ignore Panama, S Korea, Croatia, Grenada, W Germany, Japan.
S Korea was intervening to prop up a government, like a more successful version of US intervention in Vietnam. That country spent a long time under (anti-communist) dictatorship, but again that didn't necessitate US intervention.
If anything, our issue with Vietnam was in not being more aggressive. China was extremely weak in the '60s, having lost tens of millions from their self-inflicted agricultural-collectivisation famine, not to mention the Cultural Revolution they'd have midway through. There was no reason we couldn't have pushed to take Hanoi.
The French had Hanoi, then they lost it. When Americans ceased being willing to die for the Vietnamese, Saigon fell... and what were the consequences for America? "Domino theory" made some sense earlier, but communism didn't continue past Indochina. It was crushed in Indonesia by Suharto in 1965-1966, just a couple years after the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. Similarly, America left Afghanistan after decades, and what did we lose as a result?
It DID continue past Indochina. It spread into Laos, where it stays to this day, and Cambodia, whose successor government was founded by and shot through with Khmer Rougeists.
And the fact that's Suharto's murder campaign stopped the spread of communism is if anything the single best argument in favor of the domino theory. Communists only ever stopped when their bayonets hit steel.
Why doesn’t Richard Hanania, along with all the other bored psychopathic lunatics, take up gardening or model airplane building or something, anything, and save the rest of us having to constantly navigate their bizarre Napoleonic fantasies where they take turns at pressing the button for the good of humanity? What is the problem with these people? Were they not breastfed? Did somebody take way their favourite stuffy? Maybe an unsightly blemish during adolescence? Enough already.
Yeah will somebody think of the genocidal theocrats. Just let them have nukes and oppress their population in peace!
No. It is always best to assume with total certainty the unquestionable accuracy of our worst fears and therefore must immediately take the most drastic actions imaginable, including massive sneak attacks capable of triggering global thermonuclear annihilation of an entire planet, because the risk of not taking such rash action is 100% certain and immediate destruction, because the people we are dealing with are not really people at all, care about no one, not even their own grandchildren, and have no ability to act rationally even to preserve their own existence because they are a cult bent not just on genocide, but suicide, and therefore cannot be reasoned with in the interest of mutual survival as they care only about reward after death and not life here on earth, despite living in luxury penthouses which is an obvious ruse, so there is no point in even trying to talk except via threats, because they only understand the language of violence, despite not caring (as mentioned above) a whit about their earthly survival but only the afterlife, which is not at all contradictory, and therefore anyone who claims that talking first before attacking might be productive is either lying or just misguided and is delaying the inevitable as evidenced by the fact that this existential and imminent danger has been going on for over 45 years, which again is not at all contradictory. Rather we must act yesterday, even last week as we have, and keep acting, because once we have acted, it is too late to stop acting and assess the wisdom of our actions, even if events are unfolding differently that we expected, because again these are not rational actors we are dealing with and so talking is pointless. These are the undeniable and irrefutable lessons of history, most notably 20th century history, as exemplified by the lion and greatest and wisest statesman of the 20th century, maybe any century, Sir Winston Churchill who was adamant that one must never talk to one’s implacable enemy, that one should never “jaw, jaw” but should always immediately “war, war”, because, as should be clear by now, talking is always pointless and risks only total destruction, whereas first taking actions that can and often do lead to total destruction and annihilation is the only rational way to stave off total destruction and annihilation.
Implying the war stopping or starting has anything to do with what the likes of YOU want? Or that there's any legitimacy in cowing ourselves to a group of barely-functional kakistocrats who are mortally threatened by the site of women's hair?
You can just do things!
Who is cowing? The world is full of ridiculous people. Best to ignore, avoid, or make peace with them, if possible. If one cannot or will not due to proximity or other cause, then at least try not to flatter them with imitation. But do not expect others with lives far removed to join in the fray, or gleefully delight at the thought of having to do so.
Only if you and every neocon policy wonk volunteer for the front lines. Risk your lives for universal democracy and free markets beyond social media posting.
There are a lot more of us veterans in the neocon camp than in the anti-interventionist camp. Our military didn't start having recruitment problems until after the war was over, there are always plenty of Americans willing to put their money where their mouth is and fight for their beliefs.
Fighting to destroy Israel's enemies and renovate a defense contractor's kitchen.
To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail. This is why we don’t want the military making the decision to go to war.
Most kids in the military don’t want to die for Israel.
Do you have any data showing that? Because this recent poll contradicts you https://www.newsweek.com/most-gop-voters-oppose-us-military-involvement-israel-iran-conflict-poll-2086862
I am often amazed why those who still defend the Iraq War don't bring up Kurdistan, which relatively quickly became stable, peaceful, and prosperous.
Kurdistan became relatively autonomous in the aftermath of the Gulf War. It didn't require destroying central Iraqi authority, just limiting Saddam's ability to project power there.
Yes. In the wake of a successful regime change, I can see at least significant separatist pressures in the Kurdish and Azeri areas of Iran. The Turks would be pleased about the later and a lot less so about the former!
"The idea that existing regimes should continue forever no matter how brutal to their own people and threatening to the world also cannot be the answer. Such a rule would have never allowed the Soviet Union to collapse."
No one ever espoused that idea. Who ever suggested we prop up regimes we don't like just to keep them going forever just because? No one. If they fall apart on their own, that's great. It's also not an intervention.
"Civil war would clearly be an improvement over the current North Korean regime, as there would be some hope of a better future."
As long as the nukes don't start flying, maybe.
That said, I agree that the case for intervention to depose the Iranian regime is stronger than most. Or at least drop some MOABs on their nuke bunkers, if that is likely to work. And I say that as someone who opposes most interventions.
I think you are slightly pessimistic to see the regime and Islamists as the same, most conservative ayatollahs are opposed to the Shah, modernity and the regime. Khomeinism is a firm break with traditional Shi'ism and many leading clerics are openly opposed to the regime.
>In the end, something like this strategy eventually worked in Syria, where the US both stopped the Assad regime from crushing its opponents, and also made sure that Islamists would not take over the country. We didn’t have natural allies anywhere except among the Kurds, but stumbled towards a policy that ultimately helped ensure that a relatively tolerant leader would come to power due to the fact that we consistently opposed actors that we found unacceptable.
Syria was a decade plus long conflict that only got resolved after half a million people were killed and millions fled the country as refugees. Trotting this out as a positive example is sociopathic.
When the government falls, a brutal civil war commences, and factions of the 200,000+ Basij paramilitaries take over and vie for power, it will be the 2009 Green Revolutionary types and Mahsa Amini liberals —the ones that western hawks always pretended to give a crap about—that will be the first to be lined up against the wall. Remember that.
From the HBD perspective, one can note that Iranians are "Aryan" speaking an Indo-European language and are therefore more inherently inclined to the sensibilities of Western Europeans than the Semitic Arabs are!
"I'm not surprised by the number of traitors in Iran. Hatred of the regime runs so deep, even within the state apparatus.
This is precisely why a state must respect the rights of its citizens. Otherwise, it ends up becoming a "Mossadian Republic," as Iran has become: a state hated by its own people, or by a large portion of them.
That said, all is not lost for the mullahs, especially if Israel makes the mistake of striking civilian areas and causing casualties among the population."
Original comment in French, here: https://x.com/restitutorII/status/1934502558027952518
Yes, Iraq was different. This would be much, much worse.
It's much larger.
Westerners like this continuously forget ...
1) North Koreans have it (correctly) ingrained that the Americans went out of their way to kill 33% of civilians during the Korean War
2) The US put in a shitty Shah that was also "dictatorial" and "mean" (lmao)
3) People really don't like when the "enemy" puts in some party ... it removes the new party's credibility by default
4) Lots of people, though they not be white, aren't stupid and know wtf the US has done in foreign policy since 1930 (the real start of the J**** terrorist gangs in P******).
The first Zionist attack in mandatory palestine was in ‘37. Palestinians had been attacking Jews for 17 years by then.
1) Overstated number (likely more like 10-15%) and hyperbolic to say US "went out of its way" - it conducted area bombing and tolerated civilian casualties in line with bombing campaigns in Germany and Japan in WWII
Also what does this have to do with anything? Are you saying that justifies the Kim dynasty?
2) Certainly true but he was a better alternative for the average Iranian than the Ayatollah - he oversaw economic modernization, women's rights and greater stability than they have seen since. 88% of Iranians want regime change now.
Furthermore this is a false dichotomy - the choice is not between Shah and Ayatollah, but between Ayatollah and a hope for a secular constitutional republic.
3) This is what elections are for
4) Unclear what your point is - but it seems the Iranians are welcoming both US and Israeli (assume that's what you meant with J**** even though that has the wrong number of asterisks) attacks on the regime in Iran, so not sure they would agree with you
you westerners love to project as if everyone is like you. "secular" as if its an end goal everyone should have.
where the hell is your point #4? every time a population is attacked, u ytpipo really think non-white people like getting bombed and will welcome the "virtuous white man" with open arms. you better stick your dick out and show some proof. shit or get off the pot.
i'm no ayatollah fan per say, but as pluralistic and open a society the Persians have always been, from Medo-Persian / Cyrus the Great to King Darius to today, your projection on what the dirty sand************* (or how many ever asterisks there are) should want is quite hilarious. do you project the same way on the people you deal with on a day to day?
Do you think the Ayatollah leads or wants a "pluralistic and open society"? You're strawmanning by implying Richard or anyone here is asking for a Western takeover of Iran, when no one is asking for Western boots on the ground.
The wishes of the Iranian people have been subverted and crushed by the current regime - there is a desire for an Iranian-led, ethnically diverse, pluralistic democratic model. That's why there are giant protests in Iran every few years, or you can look at the polls.
You should instead argue that toppling the regime is too great a risk or not our problem - those are reasonable arguments - unlike whatever you're trying to type out through your apparently ongoing stroke.
those 2022 protests weren't lost on me. if the mossad really wished to bring Iran into the fold, not blast the Persian people, from the Medo-Persian to Khwa(however you spell it) to Sassanian, to absolute US-led genocide, there was an Arab Spring moment.
How much do you believe that Tehran wants to nuke NYC? You must be a Bibi/ Will Chamberlain / Eylon Levy shill.
and for the record ... Russia rallied around the flag. Ukraine. Imperial Japan. Nazi Germany. Literally damn near every country post attack. 9-11? I was a toddler / infant at the time. This mystical dissent you wish to appear doesn't exist buddy.
I don't have to think Iran wants to nuke NYC (or even Tel Aviv!) to think that an authoritarian religious fundamentalist government possessing nukes is a bad thing for the world (and for their own people, who would never be able to overthrow them as is now the case in N. Korea).
If you can't agree with that you've lost the plot.
Plenty of examples that did not see clear "rally around the flag" too - Libya, Kosovo, Syria, Afghanistan... Again I think it is very valid to ask "what happens post-Ayatollah", but saying that the Iranian people are happy with the status quo is not correct. And a nuclear-armed government is even worse for the population.
Only thing we somewhat agree on is that the Iranian regime isn't very popular. Giving them a rally around the flag, when the Iranian population (surprise) aren't fucking retards and realize what the Jews want to happen to Iran and themselves (Libya + some people literally dying / getting sold to slavery), is like the LAST thing you'd want.
Again ... very pro-Iraq war. How many people are dead? ISIS (which seems to be a Western creation)? The Arab Spring --> Syrian Civil War / migrant crisis?
You want more dirty hijabis in your town? Either kill all of them or no war. There are two choices.
*edit*: also, what's the Tulsi thing about Iran no weapon? It would take years for them? Besides, for their own existence, they should've been sprinting to a nuke since 1979. Would've avoided this shit. No negotiating with Obama because the neocon deep state runs all.
I don't think it was the Americans who installed the Shah or his dad.
then who the fuck is Mohamed Mossadegh? where the fuck does he show up in your Paw Patrol version of events?
The United States has admitted we installed the Shah in 1953
The CIA and MI6 both supported him firing his Prime Minister in 1953, but he was Shah and in charge of appointing Prime Ministers at the time.
He was installed in 1941 by the Anglo-Soviet invasion.
Mohammad Reza Pahlavi inherited the throne from his father, Reza Shah, in 1941. The US had nothing to do with that. Reza Shah ruled since 1925. Reza Shah's reign ended when he was forced to abdicate by the British after the Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran in 1941.
The Pahlavi dynasty was the latest dynasty in the Persian monarchy that goes back 2500 years.
The US did not “put in the Shah.”
Mohammad Reza Pahlavi inherited the throne from his father, Reza Shah, in 1941. The US had nothing to do with that. Reza Shah ruled since 1925. Reza Shah's reign ended when he was forced to abdicate by the British after the Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran in 1941.
The Pahlavi dynasty was the latest dynasty in the Persian monarchy that goes back 2500 years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Reza_Pahlavi
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reza_Shah
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pahlavi_dynasty
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_monarchs_of_Iran
we just gonna ignore Mohamed Mossadegh here? and British Petroleum / CIA involvement? Come on man, don't tell me a whitewashed, pro-West version of history buddy.
No, I am merely stating the obvious fact that the Shah was in power long before 1953, and other Shahs had ruled in Persia for 2500 years. You will be more persuasive to other people if you are correct about facts.
I never said anything “pro-West” in my comment.
The Shah appointed Mossadegh to be Prime Minister on 28 April 1951 (i.e ten years after the Shah had inherited his throne in 1941). The British Petroleum/CIA involvement to pressure the Shah to unappoint Mossadegh was 2 years later. He might well have done so anyway, as he was no big fan of Mossadegh.
It was an important event but it occurred 12 years after the Shah came to power. The Iranian Shah was never a figurehead like the current British king. The Shah had serious political power long before 1953. The Shad had the power to:
Appoint and dismiss ministers
Propose legislation
Veto legislation
Declare war
Commander in chief of the armed forces
It is important to know because many people are incorrect about the basic facts of the event.
OK, I do not know much about pre-Mossadegh, post-Mughal Iran, so you called my bluff there.
Still, Shah was put in place because him + his ruling class would be more amenable to Western business interests (which is the reason why Socialists / Communists get blasted by the US).
I guess I don't really have a trifle here. Apologies for my aggression.
Apology accepted, but to be clear the Shah was never “put it place.” It was an inherited title that goes back 2500 years (i.e long before Western business interests or Socialists/Communists).
It might be fair to use the term in 1941 when the UK and USSR invaded neutral Iran to force it to be used a transit point for military aid from West to the USSR during WW2.
https://vanguardww2museum.ir/anglo-soviet-invasion-of-iran/
This was to forward the war effort, not Western business interests. Iran then became a key transit point for US military aid to the Soviet Union.
https://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/lend-lease-to-russia-the-persian-corridor/
It is not clear to me why the UK and USSR preferred the young Pahlavi over the old Pahlavi, but they apparently forced him to abdicate in favor of his son. This act did not change the power of the Shah, only the person who held it.
> While cavalierly going around the world knocking off governments can’t be the right approach, the idea that existing regimes should continue forever no matter how brutal to their own people and threatening to the world also cannot be the answer.
The whole essay is premised on this false dichotomy. Bad regimes can end due to a) internal collapse b) insurrection c) intervention by non-US countries, none of which require US intervention. Opposing US involvement in this particular conflict means the US ought not overthrow this particular government, not that all bad regimes should be permanent, nor even that the US should never overthrow any foreign government.
I’m for sending the B2 and the bunker buster. No matter what regime is there when the dust settles, they won’t have the means to get back to this point in nuke weapon development for a long time. Iran with nukes is a direct threat, not insofar as a ICBM, but in sending little packages in the backpacks of their willing possum of martyrs.
I’m less sanguine about doing anything overt wrt regime change. It doesn’t have to be Iraq 2.0; the Shah 2.0 is bad enough. Sure we may play favorites but I would not want to put too many fingers on the scales.