Israel strikes Iran

[Szdfan]

Here, I think the military objectives are reasonably well defined, at least for now. I also think a lot of the facts have real substance. International law does not allow for preemptive wars, though, for an obvious reason - if you can invade someone because you think they might invade you, that justifies almost any war.

It's hard to say what comes next. This involves pretty much the entire Middle East, not just the US, Iran, and Israel. War is inherently chaotic. We know very little.

I think the objectives for the strike itself were well defined. I’m not sure about beyond that. News Max was going on last night how this might lead to internal regime change as the Iranians overthrowing the regime. I think that’s extremely unlikely. As Nicholas Kristof points out in the New York Times points out, war has a way of galvanizing people.

In my travels in Iran, I’ve seen how unpopular the regime is. Iran — at the popular level — has always struck me as one of the most pro-American countries in the region, precisely because the government is so resented for corruption, hypocrisy and economic incompetence.

That pro-Americanism seemed to bode well for the future, after the death of the supreme leader. But a pro-American government seems less likely if we have waged war on Iran. Indeed, regime change might look more like a hard-line coup than anything else. Once again, the range of possibilities is immense, with some quite alarming.

Part of the hubris of “preemptive war” is the assumption that it will be quick and painless without consequences. That hubris is on display with the Trump administration and its call for peace after bombing another country laughable.

I also have a “wait and see” attitude, but I think there are reasons why the US has not bombed Iran previously, even though it had the capacity. I guess we’re about to discover the consequences for this.

[Ken]

Here, I think the military objectives are reasonably well defined, at least for now. I also think a lot of the facts have real substance. International law does not allow for preemptive wars, though, for an obvious reason - if you can invade someone because you think they might invade you, that justifies almost any war.

It's hard to say what comes next. This involves pretty much the entire Middle East, not just the US, Iran, and Israel. War is inherently chaotic. We know very little.

I think the objectives for the strike itself were well defined. I’m not sure about beyond that. News Max was going on last night how this might lead to internal regime change as the Iranians overthrowing the regime. I think that’s extremely unlikely. As Nicholas Kristof points out in the New York Times points out, war has a way of galvanizing people.

In my travels in Iran, I’ve seen how unpopular the regime is. Iran — at the popular level — has always struck me as one of the most pro-American countries in the region, precisely because the government is so resented for corruption, hypocrisy and economic incompetence.

That pro-Americanism seemed to bode well for the future, after the death of the supreme leader. But a pro-American government seems less likely if we have waged war on Iran. Indeed, regime change might look more like a hard-line coup than anything else. Once again, the range of possibilities is immense, with some quite alarming.

Part of the hubris of “preemptive war” is the assumption that it will be quick and painless without consequences. That hubris is on display with the Trump administration and its call for peace after bombing another country laughable.

I also have a “wait and see” attitude, but I think there are reasons why the US has not bombed Iran previously, even though it had the capacity. I guess we’re about to discover the consequences for this.

1. The US and Israel have been talking about bombing Iran for decades. In any war the other side always gets a vote. And the Iranians would have to be incredibly incompetent to not have prepared against this eventuality. Simple wars never are. Russia thought it would be simple to conquer Ukraine like it was the USSR rolling into Czechoslovakia in 1968. To just about everyone's surprise the Ukrainians have fought them to a draw. The US thought it would be easy to invade Iraq and Afghanistan. Neither turned out to be the case.

2. Regime change never works out the way protagonists want. Because if you destabilize or decapitate a regime without actually replacing it with long term occupying force like we did with Germany and Japan then the most ruthless and vicious alternative is going to rise to the top. And whatever pro-democracy or pro-western forces you want to prop-up will be washed away. In 1945 the occupying forces in both Germany and Japan were larger than our entire military today. Iraq is a country of 92 million people that has been under some type of military rule for nearly 50 years and the size of Spain, France and Germany combined. Those who have the means and ruthlessness to seize power in a leadership vacuum are not likely to be who we will want to see take power. They may not be the same fundamentalist clerics who hold power now. But they won't necessarily be pro-western. More likely some sort of military regime or military-controlled regime like so many other middle eastern states from Sudan to Pakistan.

[Ken]

Vance today. This is the dictionary definition of hubris.

[JohnH]

My sources actually put them at Diego Garcia or in route to there along with quite a few fighters as well.

Well…the US has now bombed three nuclear sites in Iran. Now we’ll see if it escalates to war.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/live-blog/rcna214241

escalates to war?

It already is war.

By that standard, we’ve been at war for several decades, including when the U.S. assassinated Soleimani.

[JohnH]

One of the more amazing things to see right now is the people who have suddenly pivoted to openly supporting the current Iranian regime. You know, the same one that is mindlessly corrupt, funds every tinpot terrorist group it can find, has infamous morality police that enforce a wildly unpopular dress code, and is obsessed with gaining nuclear capabilities.

I don’t see anything wrong with less nuclear proliferation, and in particular destroying sites trying to make atomic bombs. Iran was warned well ahead of time to stop doing that. Perhaps they should have thought better about using their proxies to endlessly harass Israel by funding the Houthis, Hezbollah, and Hamas.

[joshuabgood]

Vance today. This is the dictionary definition of hubris.

It's amazing what we don't learn.

[Ken]

One of the more amazing things to see right now is the people who have suddenly pivoted to openly supporting the current Iranian regime. You know, the same one that is mindlessly corrupt, funds every tinpot terrorist group it can find, has infamous morality police that enforce a wildly unpopular dress code, and is obsessed with gaining nuclear capabilities.

I don’t see anything wrong with less nuclear proliferation, and in particular destroying sites trying to make atomic bombs. Iran was warned well ahead of time to stop doing that. Perhaps they should have thought better about using their proxies to endlessly harass Israel by funding the Houthis, Hezbollah, and Hamas.

Where are you seeing this? Who is openly supporting the Iranian regime?

Is it the same people who are mindlessly supporting Iran's allies, the Russian regime?

[JohnL]

I'd be interested in seeing the link to those readouts saying that it was a natural earthquake. I hope it was. I don't like thinking that something like a bomb that big and nasty could set one off.

https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes ... /executive

http://irsc.ut.ac.ir/newsview.php?&eve ... rth_ismc__

Download the waveform at your own risk

Soloist, thank you. I’ll look at those and bookmark them. I want to scrutinize the data after I take my nap. That was a big lunch we had. I appreciate you for sticking to facts and providing non-political input.

Looks like this thread is getting into political bashing of leadership instead of collecting facts about a current event so I’ll leave the rest of you to it.

[JohnH]

One of the more amazing things to see right now is the people who have suddenly pivoted to openly supporting the current Iranian regime. You know, the same one that is mindlessly corrupt, funds every tinpot terrorist group it can find, has infamous morality police that enforce a wildly unpopular dress code, and is obsessed with gaining nuclear capabilities.

I don’t see anything wrong with less nuclear proliferation, and in particular destroying sites trying to make atomic bombs. Iran was warned well ahead of time to stop doing that. Perhaps they should have thought better about using their proxies to endlessly harass Israel by funding the Houthis, Hezbollah, and Hamas.

Where are you seeing this? Who is openly supporting the Iranian regime?

Here is an example:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/0 ... el-london/

I mean… openly supporting the Ayotollah. It’s a bit nuts.

Is it the same people who are mindlessly supporting Iran's allies, the Russian regime?

No. It tends to be the same people who would be very “pro-Palestine”/“anti-Israel”. Or I could say anti-Zionist. It’s basically the cause célèbre of the far left now, and even attracting some of the center-left. And oddly enough the populist right as well.

[JohnH]

Looks like this thread is getting into political bashing of leadership instead of collecting facts about a current event so I’ll leave the rest of you to it.

Some of us feel concern with leadership seemingly dragging us into a conflict none of us want that isn’t our fight. I’m not pro-Iran regime, but I also think it’s a bit of a big deal to be attacking them on their own soil.