US Attacks Iran 2026

[Dan Z]

Here in the US we see ourselves at the center of things - including, for better or worse, the war in Iran. That may be shortsighted.

Stepping back a bit, isn't it possible that Israel, and the hawkish and opportunistic leadership of Netanyahu, has been the instigator and driver of this war? President Trump seems like the willing (and powerful) accomplice here - not the "brains" behind the effort.

There might be some truth here but the US is not a helpless victim, that narrative belongs to the anti-Semitic left. My guess is the Israelis did the Intel work of finding the target where the senior leadership of Iran was in one building and put the pressure to the president, but the decision was his alone. He must stand to account for it.

When it comes to the rationale for the war, Netanyahu is on much firmer footing. Since the Shah was deposed, Iran has been a hard-line Islamic republic aligned (along with its proxies) against Israel. Iran and its proxies represented an existential threat to Israel. Bibi's approach in Gaza, Lebanon & now Iran has been the violent neutering of the military (and to a good degree the political & economic) capabilities of Israel's Iran-supported enemies.

Trump is certainly culpable for the US decision to go to war, but his compelling rationale for the Iran war (to the degree it exists) seems much weaker - and it is most likely that the US is acting more in support of Israeli pressure than in response to an immediate threat to its own sovereignty. That's exactly what counterintelligence chief Joe Kent claimed when resigning his position today; that there was no immediate threat to the US from Iran.

[Bootstrap]

I'll start: the IRGC is bad.

They suppress protests inside Iran, gun down protesteers, detain and intimidate dissidents, support armed groups like Hezbollah and regional militias, and play a major role in conflicts outside Iran that have led to civilian deaths. They’re also part of a system that has persecuted religious minorities, including Christians.

I think that we all agree that's bad. Does anyone disagree? I doubt that's a partisan issue.

They are also in control of a great deal of Iran.

[JohnH]

I'll start: the IRGC is bad.

They suppress protests inside Iran, gun down protesteers, detain and intimidate dissidents, support armed groups like Hezbollah and regional militias, and play a major role in conflicts outside Iran that have led to civilian deaths. They’re also part of a system that has persecuted religious minorities, including Christians.

I think that we all agree that's bad. Does anyone disagree? I doubt that's a partisan issue.

There are actually quite a few people (many of them on the right wing) expressing sympathy for the Iranian regime, claiming they have only ever attacked their neighbours in self defence, and so forth. A narrative has also emerged that sympathy for Palestinians means you need to support the Iranian regime.

They are also in control of a great deal of Iran.

Yes, and as I understand it, they control the key sectors of the economy - very much like a cartel or a mafia family who runs most of the country.

[Bootstrap]

I'll start: the IRGC is bad.

They suppress protests inside Iran, gun down protesteers, detain and intimidate dissidents, support armed groups like Hezbollah and regional militias, and play a major role in conflicts outside Iran that have led to civilian deaths. They’re also part of a system that has persecuted religious minorities, including Christians.

I think that we all agree that's bad. Does anyone disagree? I doubt that's a partisan issue.

There are actually quite a few people (many of them on the right wing) expressing sympathy for the Iranian regime, claiming they have only ever attacked their neighbours in self defence, and so forth. A narrative has also emerged that sympathy for Palestinians means you need to support the Iranian regime.

Here? I haven't seen it.

They are also in control of a great deal of Iran.

Yes, and as I understand it, they control the key sectors of the economy - very much like a cartel or a mafia family who runs most of the country.

Fair.

Now ... would you use an air attack to displace the mafia? Would you tell the people in an area they control to simply rise up and overthrow the mafia?

[JohnH]

Now ... would you use an air attack to displace the mafia? Would you tell the people in an area they control to simply rise up and overthrow the mafia?

No, but I’m not a military strategist. If a country were run by a mafia that was trying to get nuclear weapons and is willing to fire missiles at its neighbours, I’d say other governments are justified in taking extreme measures.

My personal stance is to seek something greater than earthly war, law enforcement, and self defence.

[JohnH]

exactly what counterintelligence chief Joe Kent claimed when resigning his position today; that there was no immediate threat to the US from Iran.

The same Joe Kent who’s been calling for war with Iran for years.

A lot of the opposition to this is because the current military spending regime isn’t lining the right people’s pockets.

[Jazman]

I saw video of this, but thought a written report would be better for here.

Here's a part from the article (and what I saw from Congressional video) that I found interesting, partly because it seems to resemble some of the discussion we're having here between opposers of US military interventions (principled and consistent for years no matter who's in the WH)
- vs - supporters or defenders of this war (but who not many months or even weeks ago also were signaling/implying opposition to a foreign policy of wars/interventions mostly via their support for the president who said over and over that he would end wars, not start them etc etc BUT who are now supporting or defending or excusing the current growing, extensive hot War in the middle east...) Why the 180deg turn? I believe Mr Ryan below was wandering the same thing...

"On Tuesday, Mr Colby told the Senate armed services committee that the war “is not going to be endless”. There would be no “nation building”, he added. He also claimed the conflict was not about regime change in Iran, even though Mr Trump has said he wants to be involved in choosing the next leader, following the death of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei – whom Mr Colby said was killed in an Israeli strike.

In one awkward exchange before the House armed services committee, representative Pat Ryan asked Mr Colby about the “massive inconsistencies” between his previous remarks about the Middle East and the situation it is now in.

Quoting from an opinion piece Mr Colby wrote in 2019, Mr Ryan read the Pentagon official's own words back to him. An Iran “intervention would not only cost American lives, but also consume vast munitions and equipment and distract American readiness from Asia, harming us capacity to deter China”, Mr Ryan said, quoting Mr Colby from his piece in the Wall Street Journal.

“You're very clear [that the Iran war] is a mistake, that there's a far greater threat," he added."

[Bootstrap]

That's exactly what counterintelligence chief Joe Kent claimed when resigning his position today; that there was no immediate threat to the US from Iran.

I have seen similar claims from multiple sources.

And let's face it, we seem to have a list of countries to try "regime change" in, without any definition of what that means or how we will know when we have accomplished it. Currently, we have the following unfinished projects:

- Gaza
- Venezuela
- Iran
- Cuba

Syria is a shambles. So is Lebanon. So are Iraq and Afghanistan. So is Gaza. When are we going to start building something instead of just tearing things down?

What have we done in Venezuela beyond grabbing their oil?

Who else is on this list? Are we still threatening Canada and Greenland? Maybe all of these countries will enjoy the same fate as The Kennedy Center and the East Wing of the White House. Tearing down is easier than building up. It's easy to start wars, hard to end them.

Ah, but we are just so manly these days. No more rules of engagement to protect civilians. No more restraint from Congress. And look how many pushups Hegseth can do! Isn't testosterone fun?

[ken_sylvania]

That's exactly what counterintelligence chief Joe Kent claimed when resigning his position today; that there was no immediate threat to the US from Iran.

I have seen similar claims from multiple sources.

And let's face it, we seem to have a list of countries to try "regime change" in, without any definition of what that means or how we will know when we have accomplished it. Currently, we have the following unfinished projects:

- Gaza
- Venezuela
- Iran
- Cuba

Syria is a shambles. So is Lebanon. So are Iraq and Afghanistan. So is Gaza. When are we going to start building something instead of just tearing things down?

What have we done in Venezuela beyond grabbing their oil?

Who else is on this list? Are we still threatening Canada and Greenland? Maybe all of these countries will enjoy the same fate as The Kennedy Center and the East Wing of the White House. Tearing down is easier than building up. It's easy to start wars, hard to end them.

I'm sorry that you are involved.

[Bootstrap]

I'm sorry that you are involved.

Only on MN. And ... well, I am in fact involved with some of the victims. Which is why this is on my heart.

FWIW, I can't do as many pushups as Hegseth. Perhaps more than Trump.