'Murica

[Qunk]

FFS. Another country brought into it.

Qatar were already in it as a USA ally. Iran has chosen the least controversial target that was possible. The US response will be minimal, and Iran can claim a victory. Everyone wins.

[Qunk]

Shit has hit the fan now Iran has launched against a US base in Qatar

It really has not hit the fan. If they’d have targeted Saudi Arabia, Iraq or Syria that would be shit hitting the fan. But they’ll never do that. I wish the entire world would calm down on the hyperbole

[Nemo]

It does feel like a sort of face saving thing where everyone can move on, but at the same time you wouldn't back against Trump deciding to escalate further. Iran are firmly in the finding out stage of fuck about and find out, but there are enough volatile people involved that you can never be too blasé.

[Boy About Town]

It does feel like a sort of face saving thing where everyone can move on, but at the same time you wouldn't back against Trump deciding to escalate further. Iran are firmly in the finding out stage of fuck about and find out, but there are enough volatile people involved that you can never be too blasé.

Do you base that on Trump being the most warmongering president? 

[Batch]

Do you base that on Trump being the most warmongering president? 

Except when the big boys are in play, obvs

[McGurk's Missus]

Do you base that on Trump being the most warmongering president? 

Think it's more based on your thoughts that Iran would use nuclear weapons, when they never have. Sure, they've threatened to but most countries with a nuclear deterrent have at some point used the dick waving threat - that is in part, the game that global politics likes to play. Whilst many have threatened to use, guess which country is the only country to have actually used atomic weapons, and which country has carried out close to 50 attacks on middle eastern countries {including Iran...four times} over the last hundred years? Iran hasn't invaded another country in at least two hundred years.

Yet again this is mostly about America pushing another unfounded war in the Middle East and they've been trying to push one with Iran for a while now. Likely just for profit. Iran is not a warmongering country and most recent history {lets say since they invaded India or wanted to reclaim a part of Afghan off the British hundreds of years ago} points to them coming to the aid of many other Middle Eastern nations.

Another consideration, is that Iran's ''soft'' approach to nuclear deterrent is one that holds some form of stability in the Middle East. Iran hasn't attacked a neighbouring country for a long time and is not considered an aggressive nation by anyone, other than Orangeface and Bibi that is. Global politics, especially in the west {well America mostly}, yearns for unrest and instability. Weakening Iran, enables others to attack - especially those with vested interests in neighbouring countries to Iran; like Israel for example.

It's quite something that the only nation to use atomic weapons on another nation, is the nation also dictating to others, which nations should be allowed to protect itself/deter other nations from attack by having its own nuclear deterrent.


I'll quote this because it certainly rings true:

''Iran is not the enemy, Iran is not the problem. Iran isn’t the finder of terrorism, one country is, and one country alone.''

[Qunk]

Think it's more based on your thoughts that Iran would use nuclear weapons, when they never have. Sure, they've threatened to but most countries with a nuclear deterrent have at some point used the dick waving threat - that is in part, the game that global politics likes to play. Whilst many have threatened to use, guess which country is the only country to have actually used atomic weapons, and which country has carried out close to 50 attacks on middle eastern countries {including Iran...four times} over the last hundred years? Iran hasn't invaded another country in at least two hundred years.

Yet again this is mostly about America pushing another unfounded war in the Middle East and they've been trying to push one with Iran for a while now. Likely just for profit. Iran is not a warmongering country and most recent history {lets say since they invaded India or wanted to reclaim a part of Afghan off the British hundreds of years ago} points to them coming to the aid of many other Middle Eastern nations.

Another consideration, is that Iran's ''soft'' approach to nuclear deterrent is one that holds some form of stability in the Middle East. Iran hasn't attacked a neighbouring country for a long time and is not considered an aggressive nation by anyone, other than Orangeface and Bibi that is. Global politics, especially in the west {well America mostly}, yearns for unrest and instability. Weakening Iran, enables others to attack - especially those with vested interests in neighbouring countries to Iran; like Israel for example.

It's quite something that the only nation to use atomic weapons on another nation, is the nation also dictating to others, which nations should be allowed to protect itself/deter other nations from attack by having its own nuclear deterrent.


I'll quote this because it certainly rings true:

''Iran is not the enemy, Iran is not the problem. Iran isn’t the finder of terrorism, one country is, and one country alone.''

I think your criticism of the U.S. is fair, but only to a point. It’s true they’ve made major mistakes, like the invasion of Iraq or the chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan. But they’ve also intervened for what many would see as morally justified reasons, such as acting against Assad when he used chemical weapons against his own people or helping stop ISIS when it was enslaving, raping, and beheading civilians. Being the world’s most powerful country inevitably means getting some things right and others badly wrong.

Where I strongly disagree is with your assessment of Iran as “not a warmongering country.” Iran may not launch invasions, but proxy warfare is still warfare. They’ve backed Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen, and Assad’s regime in Syria, all of which have prolonged conflicts and civilian suffering. They’ve supported Shiite militias in Iraq, attacked Pakistan, and more recently, supplied drones and weapons to Russia in its war against Ukraine.

Internally, Iran is no model of peace either. Women can’t appear in public without a hijab. Political and religious dissent is crushed brutally. Protesters have been gunned down in the streets. Journalists and activists are routinely arrested, tortured, or disappeared. The regime’s relationship with its own people is based not on trust or consent, but on fear and repression.

Even if you’re rightly sceptical of Western interventionism, it’s a serious mistake to romanticise Iran’s government as some kind of misunderstood actor. Their domestic and foreign conduct speaks for itself. And let’s not forget about Salman Rushdie.

[theakston2k]

Looks like the ceasefire has failed after a couple of hours, the orange one isn’t going to like that.

[Tails]

"Iran is not a warmongering country"

Sure except, you know, Yemen, Lebanon, Israel, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Ukraine, the multiple US military bases they've attacked. They may not have declared formal war, but that above statement is utter horseshit.

[4D]

Always playing the victim too

[Tails]

I think your criticism of the U.S. is fair, but only to a point. It’s true they’ve made major mistakes, like the invasion of Iraq or the chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan. But they’ve also intervened for what many would see as morally justified reasons, such as acting against Assad when he used chemical weapons against his own people or helping stop ISIS when it was enslaving, raping, and beheading civilians. Being the world’s most powerful country inevitably means getting some things right and others badly wrong.

Where I strongly disagree is with your assessment of Iran as “not a warmongering country.” Iran may not launch invasions, but proxy warfare is still warfare. They’ve backed Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen, and Assad’s regime in Syria, all of which have prolonged conflicts and civilian suffering. They’ve supported Shiite militias in Iraq, attacked Pakistan, and more recently, supplied drones and weapons to Russia in its war against Ukraine.

Internally, Iran is no model of peace either. Women can’t appear in public without a hijab. Political and religious dissent is crushed brutally. Protesters have been gunned down in the streets. Journalists and activists are routinely arrested, tortured, or disappeared. The regime’s relationship with its own people is based not on trust or consent, but on fear and repression.

Even if you’re rightly sceptical of Western interventionism, it’s a serious mistake to romanticise Iran’s government as some kind of misunderstood actor. Their domestic and foreign conduct speaks for itself. And let’s not forget about Salman Rushdie.

That answered it significantly better than I did, thanks!

I get the points from the "bUt AmErIcA!!" crowd but you can condemn western imperialism and authoritarian theocracy at the same time. The history of the western powers should be reckoned with, not brushed aside. Ignoring or downplaying Irans misdeeds in the name of countering Western hypocrisy risks turning critical conversation into blind apologism.

[Bennett]

As with a lot of the region I don't think it's entirely fair to detach the west's intervention with a lot of what is happening now....the butterfly effect through 75 years of meddling can't be overlooked.

As for today, I am not a big fan of nuclear weapons (hot take, I know). But whilst they exist I don't particularly like that there are nations saying who can and cannot have them, one of them actively performing a genocide with the west writing strongly worded letters to them

[Tails]

Ah yes, because Iran and its Persian ancestors were famously peaceful throughout history!

I get the point you’re trying to make, but let’s not pretend this region didn’t already have a long, bloody history of war, conquest, oppression, and sectarian violence long before any Western intervention. Western meddling absolutely made things worse but it did not invent conflict in the Middle East nor was it the precursor to their hatred of the West and its ideologies.

[4D]

Have you not seen 300? 

[Tails]

Have you not seen 300? 

The main driver for my dislike of Iran, tbh.