Conflict between Palestine and Israel escalates

[tstorm823]

The stated goal was to destroy an active, near-successful nuclear weapons development program. Something there has been no good evidence of existing to begin with (shades of Bush's nonextent WMDs), and which the US had already claimed had been obliterated months ago.

https://www.war.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/4418826/hegseth-says-epic-fury-goals-in-iran-are-laser-focused/

"The mission of Operation Epic Fury is laser-focused," Hegseth said today during a press briefing at the Pentagon. "Destroy Iranian offensive missiles, destroy Iranian missile production, destroy their navy and other security infrastructure, and they will never have nuclear weapons."

It's like 4th on the list, and not at all phrased the way you chose to put it. Trump's statement only says they are continuing to attempt to develop nuclear weapons and need be stopped, but more directly goes after the long range missile program:

Read Trump's full statement on Iran attacks

President Donald Trump said in an 8-minute video posted on his Truth Social that the U.S. has begun “major combat operations in Iran.” He claimed Iran has continued to develop its nuclear program and plans to develop missiles to reach U.S. and appealed to the Iranian people to “take over your...

www.pbs.org

The only place I recall anyone in the administration basing decisions on specifically the imminence of Iran nukes is Steve Witkoff saying that Iranian negotiators before the war claimed as a part of their negotiating strategy that they had enough uranium refined to have 11 nukes within 10 days. Which is a hell of a thing to say to the single global military superpower when they come to insist you stop working on nukes and slaughtering your citizens. I don't think that was a serious timeline, nor do I think the Trump administration took that seriously or it would have been in the statements on the war upfront, but its a hell of a thing to say.

And yet Russia has already been making bank from the skyrocketing oil costs.

And lost their most direct military support. And have shown themselves as an incredibly useless ally, offering little support but condolences. I don't think it's so obvious that a little extra oil revenue is going to offset those issues. Especially when the extra revenue would be generating primarily by trying to charge all that extra to China, one of the only other places willing to still sell them munitions.

"Hey China, wanna buy our oil at 40% higher prices now that we've fully shown ourselves to be completely useless partners? Also, we just lost our missile supplier, so you should probably fill that role too while we gouge shamelessly." That sure sounds like a winning strategy.

So the Iran conflict isn't a humiliating blunder causing economic chaos for the US and wider world alike, but instead a rare species of victory?

You think it's a humiliating blunder because you want Trump to be humiliated. That is all. Is a few months of increased oil prices a humiliating outcome with the goal of crippling or eliminating an oppressive dictatorship, taking long range weapons out of their hands, and taking away the funding and arming from half the globe's terrorist groups? I think most people would take that trade, far from finding it humiliating, but time will tell how it actually resolves.

 

[Hades]

You think it's a humiliating blunder because you want Trump to be humiliated.

What I want is Trump not making his problem our problem by risking a giant destabilizing energy and migrant crisis in Europe, or financially boosting the Russian orcs trying to topple our continent just because he needed to feel though or distract from Epstein. Trump needs no help embaressing himself so I'd like if he goes and does it without endangering Europe.

 

[Satinavian]

So now it seems that Iran is indeed open to future negotiations.

But only with Vance as negotiator. No talks with Kushner or Witkoff who are seen as too untrustworthy after the last fake talks.

 

[Silvanus]

https://www.war.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/4418826/hegseth-says-epic-fury-goals-in-iran-are-laser-focused/

"The mission of Operation Epic Fury is laser-focused," Hegseth said today during a press briefing at the Pentagon. "Destroy Iranian offensive missiles, destroy Iranian missile production, destroy their navy and other security infrastructure, and they will never have nuclear weapons."

It's like 4th on the list, and not at all phrased the way you chose to put it. Trump's statement only says they are continuing to attempt to develop nuclear weapons and need be stopped, but more directly goes after the long range missile program:

Read Trump's full statement on Iran attacks

President Donald Trump said in an 8-minute video posted on his Truth Social that the U.S. has begun “major combat operations in Iran.” He claimed Iran has continued to develop its nuclear program and plans to develop missiles to reach U.S. and appealed to the Iranian people to “take over your...

www.pbs.org

And yet they've reiterated the supposedly imminent nuclear threat so many times. Rubio did on March 3rd. Trump did on Feb 28th. Hegseth did. And now Trump has returned to it again. Its been the one consistent throughline, the unacceptable risk they keep returning to.

If you're claiming the real reason was to destroy Iran's conventional military forces, then what exactly is the urgent need? Iran has had conventional military forces, a functional Navy and missiles, for many years. It has not invaded its neighbours. It did not attack American bases.

Now it has. As a direct retaliation to American attack.

And lost their most direct military support. And have shown themselves as an incredibly useless ally, offering little support but condolences. I don't think it's so obvious that a little extra oil revenue is going to offset those issues. Especially when the extra revenue would be generating primarily by trying to charge all that extra to China, one of the only other places willing to still sell them munitions.

Charge all that extra to China, eh? Sorry to tell you that quite a lot of the rest of the world still purchases Russian oil. Some via the shadow fleet, and others (in Europe) under existing arrangements with meagre price limits... which are already weakening as a result of this new war.

Russia has lost a regional ally that produced drones for it. Big whoop: they can make their own, and stockpiles are enormous (one of the largest scale 24-hr drone attacks on Ukraine took place just the other day). And in return for that loss, their primary export has skyrocketed in demand and price. They will be able to sustain the effort for years to come and offset the domestic pain.

But then, Trump is rather sympathetic to the Russian military effort anyway.

 

[Hades]

So now it seems that Iran is indeed open to future negotiations.

But only with Vance as negotiator. No talks with Kushner or Witkoff who are seen as too untrustworthy after the last fake talks.

Witkoff being caught conspiring with the Russians would already clue them in on him being filth not worth talking to.

But yeesh, having to be in the same room as Vance. I pity the negotiators. What on earth would Iran see in that freak?

But then, Trump is rather sympathetic to the Russian military effort anyway.

The US really turned into the worst ''ally'' imaginable once Trump came back again. With thanks to the American electorate who knew he was our enemy yet forced him on us anyway without they themselves even getting anything out of it.

 

[tstorm823]

What I want is Trump not making his problem our problem by risking a giant destabilizing energy and migrant crisis in Europe, or financially boosting the Russian orcs trying to topple our continent just because he needed to feel though or distract from Epstein. Trump needs no help embaressing himself so I'd like if he goes and does it without endangering Europe.

Iran did that. You can say it is a consequence of the attack, but Iran is making these choices deliberately. They are causing pain to uninvolved bystanders as a strategy, and you are the useful idiot championing their interests.

If you're claiming the real reason was to destroy Iran's conventional military forces, then what exactly is the urgent need?

Thousands were slaughtered in the streets in response to the largest protests in Iran since 1979, and Trump said help is on the way. Primary US interests are much longer term than that, but the immediate inspiration was the situation in Iran in January.

Charge all that extra to China, eh? Sorry to tell you that quite a lot of the rest of the world still purchases Russian oil.

Allegedly, China buys half of their petroleum exports.

They will be able to sustain the effort for years to come and offset the domestic pain.

The oil shortage will likely last months. The loss of weapons support (not just drones, also missiles), will likely last much, much longer.

 

[Silvanus]

Thousands were slaughtered in the streets in response to the largest protests in Iran since 1979, and Trump said help is on the way. Primary US interests are much longer term than that, but the immediate inspiration was the situation in Iran in January.

Sorry, to clarify, you actually think the US began bombing Iran to stop Iranian security forces killing protesters? The US provided material support for the IDF in killing over 60,000 Palestinian civilians, and you think they were prompted to step into Iran to protect Iranian protesters?

Are you genuinely that much of a mark?

Allegedly, China buys half of their petroleum exports.

Indeed, and purchases a hell of a lot of it. It is one of the largest, most lucrative markets on the planet. How is this supposed to limit the income Russia can make from a global petroleum price spike? It's not as if China will stop supplying Russia with materiel if Russia hikes its oil price. They have strong geopolitical motives to continue.

The oil shortage will likely last months. The loss of weapons support (not just drones, also missiles), will likely last much, much longer.

OK, so only a few months of funnelling endless millions of dollars into the Russian war effort. And this is optimistically assuming it doesn't turn into yet another quagmire: let's not forget the US government put zero thought into the post-war situation, rebuilding, or anything long-term.

 

[Hades]

Iran did that. You can say it is a consequence of the attack, but Iran is making these choices deliberately

Sure, since that's the only realistic military action available to them. Which would be condemnable if this was their war but its not. Its Trump war which got started without rhyme or reason, and without any ability for countries to prepare.

Iran's actions were both supremely easy to take into account by Trump, and even more supremely easy to avoid by just not randomly waging war on them.

 

[Satinavian]

What on earth would Iran see in that freak?

He wants to run for the next president and tries to distance himself from this current war, aiming for a non-interventionist brand. He has actual incentive to create a lasting peace and can't afford to be caught again in a fake negotiation where the US blows stuff up. And he is high ranking enough that Trump can't go over his head as easily as with the other two now, with the midterms looming.

Sure, he is still a freak, but tactically that demand makes sense for Iran.

 

[tstorm823]

Sorry, to clarify, you actually think the US began bombing Iran to stop Iranian security forces killing protesters? The US provided material support for the IDF in killing over 60,000 Palestinian civilians, and you think they were prompted to step into Iran to protect Iranian protesters?

Are you genuinely that much of a mark?

You ask why, I answer why, you get snarky about why now instead.
You ask why now, I answer why now, which is a different answer to a different question, and crack back to ask if I really think that's why.

Shall we continue in circles, or do you get the idea? Why is long term strategic interests, why now is large scale civil unrest in Iran, two different questions with different answers.

let's not forget the US government put zero thought into the post-war situation, rebuilding, or anything long-term.

It's very easy to forget the things you just make up entirely. You really believe the US government has not put any thought into the post-war situation? There are probably people in the Pentagon whose career is mostly dedicated to planning for this one situation, who have been considering this possibility for 20-30 years.

and even more supremely easy to avoid by just not randomly waging war on them.

A nation spends decades funding, training, and arming terror cells while threatening everyone with nukes they don't have yet and chanting "Death to America" at their highest levels of government, and you think the conflict is random?

 

[Silvanus]

You ask why, I answer why, you get snarky about why now instead.
You ask why now, I answer why now, which is a different answer to a different question, and crack back to ask if I really think that's why.

Shall we continue in circles, or do you get the idea? Why is long term strategic interests, why now is large scale civil unrest in Iran, two different questions with different answers.

I am well aware that 'why' and 'why now' are different questions. Yet they are obviously connected. The 'why' you offered-- to destroy a conventional military force that had existed for decades, and posed no new threat-- is plainly insufficient unless something in that calculus has changed.

If the changed circumstance you're proposing to square that is 1) completely unrelated to the actual rationale for war, and 2) not credible in light of America's other actions in the region, then it is worth saying so.

It's very easy to forget the things you just make up entirely. You really believe the US government has not put any thought into the post-war situation? There are probably people in the Pentagon whose career is mostly dedicated to planning for this one situation, who have been considering this possibility for 20-30 years.

In the Pentagon, making tactical models and forecasts, sure. Yet American foreign policy is still decided in the White House. And what have they given us? The President tells none of his allies that he plans to do this, and then publicly whines that they don't help him. On live camera, he shrugs and says, 'maybe we shouldn't have done it'. The official White House social media accounts are awash with memes equating the death and destruction to winning at a video game.
Let's see: do you think the plan this time is going to have any more realistic, humane thought put into it than the fucking moronic "Trump riviera" he envisioned in Gaza?

How obvious can it be, how little care, thought or planning he puts into the actions he takes? Tens of thousands die, schools with schoolgirls inside are firebombed, the President posts memes about their deaths. And you come on here and insist he must know what he's doing. Seemingly because it would be insane if he genuinely just did not care.

 

[Hades]

A nation spends decades funding, training, and arming terror cells while threatening everyone with nukes they don't have yet and chanting "Death to America" at their highest levels of government, and you think the conflict is random?

Yes. Given the gigantic power disparity Iran isn't anything resembling threat to the US, and as far as terrorism goes the US seems far more affected by terrorist cells hailing from Saudis Arabia or funded by weird golf state rich guys than those trained by Iran. There simply wasn't any reason to wage war right now.

Well not from a nation's perspective. If a certain leader's past friendships with pedophiles come back to haunt him then there's certainly a reason.

 

[Gergar12]

After backing Israel, Iran’s self-styled crown prince loses support

Critics argue Reza Pahlavi's monarchical ambitions and ties to Israel undermine his claims of advocating for democracy.

www.aljazeera.com

Counterpoint:

 

[tstorm823]

And you come on here and insist he must know what he's doing.

No, you insisted... actually not even insisted, you took as fact that everyone agreed that he didn't have any plan at all, and then asked me not to forget it. You have just such perfect vision through the fog of war as to be certain the truth is whatever precisely bolsters your pre-existing opinions.

Yes. Given the gigantic power disparity Iran isn't anything resembling threat to the US.

There is a single other nation on the planet that can remotely resemble a threat to the US, and you really have to squint. Do you really think it is illogical to ever take action?

 

[Silvanus]

No, you insisted... actually not even insisted, you took as fact that everyone agreed that he didn't have any plan at all, and then asked me not to forget it. You have just such perfect vision through the fog of war as to be certain the truth is whatever precisely bolsters your pre-existing opinions.

Oh, you can disagree all you like, but you're going to need to actually substantiate it.

Because he has given zero indication of having any plan whatsoever. He has, again and again, shown how little concern or care he gives, and treats mass death as a game. And last time America was invested in a middle eastern conflict, 60,000 civilians were killed with American arms, and the extent of his plan turned out to be to build waterfront property on their graves.

 

[Hades]

Do you really think it is illogical to ever take action?

When it prevents immidiate catastrophe and doesn't cause mass problems for the world maybe. But there was no such immididate need and there were mass problems for the rest of the world.

 

[tstorm823]

When it prevents immidiate catastrophe and doesn't cause mass problems for the world maybe. But there was no such immididate need and there were mass problems for the rest of the world.

There already have been mass problems for the rest of the world. You consider problems caused by enemies of the US to be an acceptable status quo, with maybe the exception of Russia, but even there you're not analyzing the invasion of Ukraine on the basis of its economic impact to uninvolved countries.

Oh, you can disagree all you like, but you're going to need to actually substantiate it.

No I do not. When you make a hilariously baseless claim, it is not my responsibility to substantiate why you're wrong. I don't need to even claim that you are wrong to point out that you're illogical, you may very well have found the truth by accident, but the importance is that you didn't get to where you are through any sort of reason.

 

[Hades]

You consider problems caused by enemies of the US to be an acceptable status quo, with maybe the exception of Russia but even there you're not analyzing the invasion of Ukraine on the basis of its economic impact to uninvolved countries

Kinda shocking that with everything I say about Russia that someone would think the word ''maybe'' applies with how I view them. Maybe I've been too subtle when I talk about them being completely barbaric. But I do blame Russia for energy related issues due to their invasion. Its just rather low on their crime list compared to the civilians they kidnap, torture and murder, or the countries they plot to subjugate.

But oh please. Its not like I'm Sean. ''America bad'' has never been my main foreign policy ideology. Starting dumb wars and giving everyone else unwanted problem is as dumb whether its China attacking Taiwan, Russia attacking Ukraine or America attacking Iran.

 

[Silvanus]

No I do not. When you make a hilariously baseless claim, it is not my responsibility to substantiate why you're wrong.

It is baseless to assume a meticulous plan exists when we have seen no indication of one whatsoever.

I have observed the jocular carelessness with which he has treated devastating loss of life. Low-effort memes, treating it as a video game, or calling for waterfront property to be built on mass graves. I have drawn my conclusions about his disregard for life from his own rancid actions and statements. That is applying reason. It is just acknowledging a pattern you are deeply, ideologically invested in ignoring.

 

[tstorm823]

Starting dumb wars and giving everyone else unwanted problem is as dumb whether its China attacking Taiwan, Russia attacking Ukraine or America attacking Iran.

I would just suggest that if you are concerned about voluntary excursion into unneeded conflict with negative externalities worldwide, the top of that list is the IRGC. I'm not going to suggest that all or any of the world's issues would be magicked away without the IRGC around, but they actively encourage disfunction, and stand deliberately in the way of things like peace in Gaza, development in Africa, or safe shipping passage through either the Persian Gulf or the Red Sea (via the Houthis). They support Russia invading Ukraine, they cooperate with North Korea on weapons development, and they make death to their enemies the slogan of their work, not as a means to peace but as an end in and of itself.

In the most ambitious and hopeful version of events where we imagine an end to the IRGC here and now, you stand to benefit more in the long run than the oil prices are hurting you now.