Drawing two crosses on a piece of paper every couple of years has really nothing to do with democracy. Democracy is when one can vote on all topics on any level (local village, town, district, county, state, ...) using the computer at home. This is possible to implement using the algorithms/data structures available today. We actually do basically everything online today - except voting.
For instance, such a system would be immune to corruption. That's one of the major reasons such a system will likely never appear.
> For instance, such a system would be immune to corruption
OTOH, it enables vote buying and intimidation at scale: you vote from home in exchange for 5€/not being beat up and have to film yourself doing it, so that the local bad guy gets authorized to bulldoze the local nature reserve.
Vote buying and intimidation already exist, but proving it is harder, all remote voting on everything would just make it more convenient.
Reminder that the US is responsible for the precision strike murder of at least 165 school children[1]. The fact that they are still 'investigating' after 7 days now is basically an admission that they are indeed responsible for it.
The latest hypothesis is that it was once an IRGC building many years ago but these reckless idiots in the US military just assumed this unvetted intel was correct.
Quite typical of the terrorist Iranian regime to convert a IRGC compound building into a school for girls. Also typycal for the trigger happy idiots in the US military to take the bait and blow it up during school hours.
It was not bait. USA official doctrine right now is "we dont care". Israel was systematically bombing hospitals and civilian infrastructure in all wars.
It does not matter what regime is Iran. This one is squarly on USA. USA dis not took bait, but did what it promissed to do.
> It was not bait. USA official doctrine right now is "we dont care"
Hospitals lose protection under international law when used for military purposes for good reason. Iran and its proxies have essentially been abusing the conventions that held until now. That doesn't excuse hitting a school, nor suggest that we should do away with these protections. But if one side keeps using schools and hospitals to cover materiel, the notion that those are not legitimate military targets becomes untenable.
American official attitude is "there are no rules of engagement those are stupid".
Nice apologia attempt, but no. Somehow all hospitals where Israel operates are oitside of geneva convention, always. All the accusations you made here are made up on the spot by you.
This is not about Iran abusing convention. This is USA and Israel official doctrine being like "it does not apply to us" and "the fact that we dont care makes us manly".
The school in question did not hosted missiles. And when israel "ordered" 200000 people to move away else they are valid target of murder, they were trying to create local refugee crisis.
> American official attitude is "there are no rules of engagement those are stupid"
Yeah, that was Hegseth being an idiot.
> apologia attempt, but no
Not an apology. Just an explanation of relevant law. If America started piling muntions on its hospital ships, those would be legal targets in a war. (We'd still complain when it was bombed.)
The more fundamental issue is nobody is following those rules anymore. China, Russia and America have explicitly rejected them. Israel, Iran and its proxies, too.
> This is not about Iran abusing convention
Not liking a fact doesn't make it untrue. America, Iran and Israel are each acting well outside the bounds of international law and have been for some time.
> school in question did not hosted missiles
We don't know. We have no evidence it did, so my default is this was a fuckup by America.
It should bring consequences. It won't, in part because we're in a world where it doesn't for any of America's adversaries. (Who, in turn, dovetailed off America's example in the Cold War. Though it's not like Iran and China weren't busy running roughshod over international law in that time, either.)
> when israel "ordered" 200000 people to move away else they are valid target of murder, they were trying to create local refugee crisis
Nobody wants a refugee crisis. What you're correctly identifying is there is limited regard for civilian casualties on the Israeli side. Though based on current numbers, they're well within norms (in Iran).
Did you read the Wikipedia link above? Sheesh, 10 years of civilian use.
Imagine if your mom's lived somewhere for many years, and one day the SWAT team barges in and shoots her dead because their intel showed it was a meth lab in 2016...
> Can someone explain why this is being downvoted?
It's not relevant. We have no evidence one of the nutters ordered the strike. Which makes the far more likely answer of fuckup/collateral damage in the course of a major bombing campaign a good default.
Hegseth is religious radical who invites religious radicals to speak to troops. He is the head of the operation and openly promotes "maximum lethality, rules of engagement are stupid, we dont do defenders we do warriors" philosophy.
So, imo there us a relationship between "religious nutter" leading department of war and army not being bothered with bombing schools or hospitals.
At a future time it may become apparent that these events are linked in some way. It's too early to pin them together for sure, but I don't see a problem with raising awareness.
It doesn't really matter, they are both responsible, because both attacked Iran illegaly. The major role of course has the US, Israel alone can't do much.
I’ll defer to every Iranian I know, the millions of Iranians expats, and millions of Iranians within Iran, who are all cheering us on and celebrating Khamenei’s death.
> Iranian media now report 40 killed and 48 students injured following the strike on a girls’ elementary school in Minab, as rescue and recovery efforts continue.
As an Iranian-American that's familiar with the regime, I would take that with a grain of salt. I saw this being reported from the Iranian regime themselves and they know how to manipulate optics and media really well. It's possible, but needs verification. I would also not put it past Iran to build their military infrastructure around schools intentionally (similar to Hamas with hospitals) in the hopes that it has this exact effect. Of course that does nothing to take away from the tragedy of innocent people dying and I'm not trying to negate that in any way, just something to point out.
100%. In another comment [1] I drew a parallel with the Al-Ahli hospital incident in Gaza. Once you understand basic information warfare tactics, they're easy to spot. Why newsrooms still fall for it so easily is the real mystery...
Iran tends to lie about these things while Israel usually says the truth, at least after running an investigation. It's pretty simple: one is a dictatorship without free media, and the other one isn't. It's easy to lie when you can tell the newspapers what to write, and it's much harder when they're doing their job. You want an example? Khamenei. Iran says he's safe and wasn't hurt. Israel says he's dead. Let's see.
> while Israel usually says the truth, at least after running an investigation
You can't be serious about that statement. At best it reflects overwhelming naivete about how governments (let alone those engaged in war) work. At worst, its a deliberate attempt at misinformation.
The idea is that criticism of Iran from an Iranian-American would have more merit. However, we have no way to confirm the validity of this claim. It could very well be someone pretending to be an Iranian-American.
In my experience, I find people who are "former ABC-ian" to actually be very heavily biased, if not outright lying about ABC. Mentally, I'd say it's worth less weight than someone with no information.
They left because they were unhappy with things. The former British folks are enraged about human rights abuses and societal collapse in Britain. The ex-Christians will rarely praise the Bible.
Not that there's zero weight, it's still a perspective to consider. But it has to be fact checked thoroughly.
Easy, it was Israel that probably did it and it's been shown time and time again that they can do this without political fallout under the guise that the target was a hiding spot for the military assets of Iran (or Hamas in the case of Palestine bombing).
> Easy, it was Israel that probably did it and it's been shown time and time again that they can do this without political fallout under the guise that the target was a hiding spot for the military assets of Iran (or Hamas in the case of Palestine bombing).
Are you claiming that Iran (or Hamas) site their military bases away from schools (or hospitals)?
The problem you have when you try to shield your armed forces with civilians is that you then place those civilians in danger.
What do you expect will happen when an armed force uses civilians as shields? It's not a rhetorical question, I really want to know what you expect an attacking force to do. Stop attacking?
That said, if the US/Israel didn't do it, we'd have heard a denial by now. Perhaps the target was a nearby military site. Placing military sites next to schools sounds like a tactic from the Hamas Resistance handbook.
Fair point, I take back my last remark about placement of schools near bases. God I wish the Iranian regime would just surrender, it would be so much better for everyone. Look at Hamas, they refused to surrender and the result was colossal death and misery.
Why would you believe this statement any more than a statement from Putin, Likud, Trump... or anyone like that? The Iranian regime recently admitted to shooting thousands of their own people who were protesting.
Without some confirmation, everything is propaganda, isn't it? Jeez... there is no greater force that that to have one's bias confirmed, is there. That is going to destroy us.
Both of those are crimes. It's worth noting that the Israeli crimes tend to be less criticized by western governments which tends to make some people angrier about it.
No need to worry. They have extensively stress-tested the American public over the past few years and the conclusion is clear: Americans are never going to revolt no matter what you do to them.
You are mistaken.
Just don't assume that diminishing support for Trump will result in increased support for the democratic party. I find both equally disgusting.
All the people who huffed about Kamala and Trump being sides of the same coin have brought us to this stage. You think Kamala's admin would be anywhere as venal, corrupt, blatantly unlawful as this?
Yes, and absolutely, yes.
I am old enough to realize that these are the sides of the same coin. They have different but overlapping sets of masters, but the end result is always the same. I don't see the point of losing time at the polls. Marx was right.
At this point, no country in the world will ever again 'make a deal' with the US, because while pretending to negotiate with you they try to ram a knife into your back.
The world already know this. Having an agreement with the USA is a lot like having an agreement with Darth Vader. The terms of the deal can be altered unexpectedly at any time.
That doesn't mean that such agreements are worthless. They can still be of value to the counties making them. It is just that those countries have to take into account the unreliability of the entity they are making the deal with. Deals with the USA involve a lot of forecasting.
It was pretty obvious that if the negotiations failed that the US would respond by attacking Iran. Iran didn't seem willing to give up their nuclear weapons program regardless of the quite predictable consequences.
I doubt the negotiations were in good faith, probably just a political 'see, we tried' gesture full of deal-breaker bad faith proposals. I think the plan all along has been to attack, probably for more than a year.
You don't go and rename a whole federal department to 'Department of War' when you don't intend to get into wars.
> I doubt the negotiations were in good faith, probably just a political 'see, we tried' gesture full of deal-breaker bad faith proposals.
Iranian officials made public statements refusing to give up their nuclear weapons program so they weren't negotiating in good faith either. Terrorists like the Iranian regime can never be allowed to have access to nuclear weapons for obvious reasons.
Iran has always said they don’t have a nuclear weapons program, so where are you getting this wild claim that suddenly they do a 180 on its existence, and at the same time announce refuse to give it up?
> Iran has always said they don’t have a nuclear weapons program, so where are you getting this wild claim that suddenly they do a 180 on its existence, and at the same time announce refuse to give it up?
You do not enrich uranium to 60% like Iran was doing unless you have a nuclear weapons program.
1. The U.S. and Iran had already negotiated and signed a nuclear agreement between our countries but Trump reneged on the already-negotiated agreement.
2. Trump claimed that his previous attacks on Iran within the last year “completely and totally obliterated” their nuclear program, “obliterated like nobody’s ever seen before” - both direct Trump quotes. Trump was quite clear that Iran’s nuclear program had already been destroyed like nothing had ever been destroyed before.
> 1. The U.S. and Iran had already negotiated and signed a nuclear agreement between our countries but Trump reneged on the already-negotiated agreement.
Yeah, I agree that was probably a bad idea, doesn't make what I stated above any less true.
> 2. Trump claimed that his previous attacks on Iran within the last year “completely and totally obliterated” their nuclear program, “obliterated like nobody’s ever seen before” - both direct Trump quotes. Trump was quite clear that Iran’s nuclear program had already been destroyed like nothing had ever been destroyed before.
Yes...Trump lies all the time, that's nothing new.
Yes it does, it makes everything you said untrue. You stated Iran doesn't want to give up its nuclear programme, not true. Iran in fact already did agree to it, Trump then threw that in the trash.
Second, it shows the Nuclear threat wasn't the issue because he had a solution for it and threw it away. Then bombed Iran destroying it ostensibly, then continued bombing for regime change. So it's not obvious negotiations failed over nuclear which you stated, because it wasn't about nuclear.
Negotiations failed over dismantling Iranian power, mostly its ballistic weapons. i.e. give up weapons and make yourself defenseless to maintain peace. Like the Palestinians did with Israel, after which they're still being murdered daily, aid is still being blocked, and the west bank is increasingly being colonised. In other words an absurd ask from a sovereign country with multiple expansionist neighbours including one that bombed you and virtually all its neighbours last year.
> You stated Iran doesn't want to give up its nuclear programme, not true. Iran in fact already did agree to it
JCPOA didn't fully eliminate the nuclear program, it mostly just kept it from getting too far along.
> Second, it shows the Nuclear threat wasn't the issue because he had a solution for it and threw it away. Then bombed Iran destroying it ostensibly, then continued bombing for regime change. So it's not obvious negotiations failed over nuclear which you stated, because it wasn't about nuclear.
Nuclear isn't the only issue either, but Iranian officials made it clear they would not give up their nuclear program.
> Negotiations failed over dismantling Iranian power, mostly its ballistic weapons. i.e. give up weapons and make yourself defenseless to maintain peace.
Iran isn't interested in maintaining peace, they want to continue destabilizing the entire region.
> Like the Palestinians did with Israel, after which they're still being murdered daily, aid is still being blocked, and the west bank is increasingly being colonised.
Last I checked Hamas has refused to give up their weapons.
> In other words an absurd ask from a sovereign country with multiple expansionist neighbours including one that bombed you and virtually all its neighbours last year.
Iran has repeatedly threatened the destruction of Israel, it's not surprising that Israel and the US are taking those threats seriously.
Yes it did give up the nuclear program with respect to it being a weapon's program, this is what every expert agrees with. Also the reason every country signed this deal.
> Nuclear isn't the only issue either, but Iranian officials made it clear they would not give up their nuclear program.
False, they were very clear they would give it up. Are you at all aware of what Iran has been saying through its diplomatic channels? Listen to what the neutral parties are saying, it's clear on this.
> Iran isn't interested in maintaining peace, they want to continue destabilizing the entire region.
Alright time to stop talking to you. You've got a very black/white child like view on geopolitics.
> Last I checked Hamas has refused to give up their weapons.
Hamas had one lever to pull: hostages. Hamas gave the last tens of them up in return for a cease-fire to stop the killing of at the time exceeding 100 thousand civilians (admitted by Israel itself), but Israeli killing and expansion has only continued. Iran set-up the deal, US tore its own deal apart and bombed it. Do you think these are parties to make another deal with, to give up any leverage you still have in the hope they won't reneg later and leave you worse off? Don't be silly.
> Iran has repeatedly threatened the destruction of Israel, it's not surprising that Israel and the US are taking those threats seriously.
As have Israel and the US, does it warrant a strike on these countries? Don't be ridiculous, it's rhetoric to the base. What matters is policy. Israel has expanded its borders, Iran hasn't. Israel has bombed Iran and assasinated its leadership, the reverse isn't true. Israel and US reneged on their agreements that Iran upheld.
> Yes it did give up the nuclear program with respect to it being a weapon's program, this is what every expert agrees with.
Iran's nuclear program has essentially always been a weapons program, their public statements about their nuclear program being only for peaceful purposes have never been true.
> False, they were very clear they would give it up. Are you at all aware of what Iran has been saying through its diplomatic channels? Listen to what the neutral parties are saying, it's clear on this.
Just listen to the statements Iranian officials have made in regards to giving up enrichment[0], their position has been that they will never give it up.
> Hamas had one lever to pull: hostages.
Hamas holding hostages wasn't helping their position.
> stop the killing of at the time exceeding 100 thousand civilians (admitted by Israel itself)
When has Israel admitted this?
> Iran set-up the deal, US tore its own deal apart and bombed it. Do you think these are parties to make another deal with, to give up any leverage you still have in the hope they won't reneg later and leave you worse off? Don't be silly.
I think tearing up the deal was probably a bad idea, but Iran didn't stop building ballistic missiles or funding proxies either so it's not like the deal stopped their hostile actions entirely.
> As have Israel and the US, does it warrant a strike on these countries? Don't be ridiculous, it's rhetoric to the base. What matters is policy.
Israel and the US have never advocated for the destruction of Iran in the way Iran advocates for the destruction of Israel.
> Israel has expanded its borders, Iran hasn't.
Israel's border situation is a huge mess, but that's largely due to Palestinians refusing to in good faith negotiate a peace deal with Israel that would actually establish proper boarders. What does that have to do with Iran?
> Israel has bombed Iran and assasinated its leadership, the reverse isn't true.
Just because Iran doesn't have that capability doesn't mean they wouldn't if they did.
The 'solution' explicitly allowed (by 2031) unlimited enrichment, burying centrifuges, and purchasing unlimited amounts of AD. Then no US admin could have possibly prevented an Iranian nuke. Once the faction who tried to make an ally of Iran got voted out, JCPOA was going to go. Negotiations then failed cuz Iran demanded 20% enrichment which was ridiculous. My favorite though is making the regime calling 'death to X' all the time appear as the one being defensive.
What are you talking about? Completely false and misleading.
> The 'solution' explicitly allowed (by 2031) unlimited enrichment, burying centrifuges, and purchasing unlimited amounts of AD. Then no US admin could have possibly prevented an Iranian nuke.
It was an agreement for 15 years. It doesn't at all 'explicitly allow unlimited enrichment' after the 15 year period. It just means that the JCPOA's limits would drop, and the regular NPT limits would still apply, including monitoring and inspections, which allows civilian but not military enrichment, and allows the US' military options with full transparency as opposed to Iran not letting in any inspections in the almost 8 years since Trump broke the deal.
Plus with this deal you'd have control for 15 years, and a 15 year window to negotiate additional safeguards as you see fit, or resort to military options as they do now. While negotiating this deal you'd have an assurance they aren't and can't build a bomb, and can ramp up pressure, and maintain sincerity to allow the other side of the table to agree to further demands.
Instead Trump threw this control away in 12 years ahead of schedule, removing ALL safeguards for the last 8 years and next 4 years, threw away ALL trust in the US's sincerity to make and keep deals making future deals less likely, and making a military intervention much more likely to be required. It's an absurd idea to have cancelled this deal with the view to control Iran's nuclear weapon ambitions, but it makes total sense for a president that wanted to attack Iran later down the line and needed arguments to do so, contrary entirely to what he campaigned on which is that Dems would get into a military conflict with Iran and he wouldn't.
> Once the faction who tried to make an ally of Iran got voted out, JCPOA was going to go.
Absolutely absurd to think Democrats tried to make Iran into an ally. Diplomatic engagement with Iran (which is done by all parties and their enemies, e.g. China, Soviets/Russians etc) is completely different from making a mortal enemy into an ally. Just absurd.
> JCPOA was going to go. Negotiations then failed cuz Iran demanded 20% enrichment which was ridiculous.
Firstly the 20% was prohibited in the JCPOA. I hope I need not spend any further words and the picture is obvious to you now? If it's true that as you claim that, if Iran had accepted 20%, that it would've led to a successful negotiated deal with Trump, how idiotic is Trump then to have thrown away a deal 8 years ago that already capped it at 3.5%?
So if true, your argument makes no sense. But it's not even true. The mediators between US/Iran in the diplomatic talks in the last weeks noted explicitly and clearly that Iran was willing to agree to zero stockpiling and zero accumulation, and converting existing stockpiles into irreversible fuel, and letting in inspectors in full. i.e. zero existential crisis for its neighbours. They weren't willing to give up their drone/missile program, i.e. become a defenseless country ready to be eaten up a few years later with no recourse, i.e. maintain fighting power without being an existential threat to anyone. That's an entirely natural for a sovereign state.
It's entirely reasonable to accept this deal if you want to operate in international law. If you want to rip up an existing deal to prevent a weapon, then refuse another deal to prevent such a weapon, then lie about an imminent threat of nuclear weapons which your own intelligence agencies refute, and then attack illegally under international law with no international support, then yes by all means go for it. But don't think it's not obvious that it's all a big and obvious lie, which you seem to parrot cluelessly.
First, JCPOA restrictions would have started to end this year, the 2031 situation was just extra bad.
Second, had NPT been enough, why was JCPOA necessary? Because NPT was not near enough to stop a determined state. NPT 'limits' do not limit enrichment. They just state enrichment must be done for civilian purposes and leave no enforcement mechanism. JCPOA also had no real enforcement mechanism starting in 2026. Iran could have simply taken all the money, buy weapons (legally), reach the legal max (which is basically infinity in 2031, a bit less earlier), and pressed forwards immediately. There was simply no way to enforce (some people think _this_ operation is too risky! Now lets give Iran over a trillion dollars and years to prepare).
Third, you're just wrong about current negotiations. Iran explicitly demanded 20%[0], beyond the JCPOA and with no civilian use.
Look, JCPOA debates always end in the same way. The advocates are asked how the original deal was enforceable in any way past 2031 (or even 2026) and they have to deploy word salad because the actual answer is 'Iran could have easily built a nuke, inspectors just allow us to see it but they would have been no way to do something about it'. It would be more honest if many of them just admitted they wanted to allow Iranian nukes.
"In the middle of negotiations" is arguably more and more used as a carte blanche to do whatever you want in the meantime. Prominent recent example being Putin pretending to be ready to negotiate for peace while bombing Ukraine.
The question is really whether negotiations were going on in good faith with the actual goal of realistic compromise.
What's predictable is, if you don't have nuclear weapons, you get attacked. Ask Ukraine. If I were a small country (any country for that matter) the first order of business would be to build myself nuclear weapons now.
Ask Libya. They gave up their nuclear weapons program as a sign of good will.
The US then lied through their teeth to the security council about wanting to conduct a humanitarian operation and instead acted as the rebels' air force, helping them win and subsequently leaving the country in utter ruin.
You all just keep lying endlessly, I think most people get it at this point. Iran was prepared to go further than the JCPOA, it was never enough because it was never about nuclear weapons.
I speak Persian (Farsi) and in state TV, every day, they said we won’t back down and won’t give up anything. Watch the supreme leader’s translated speech. Straight from the horse mouth! Who’s lying here?
Just to be clear I’m not pro war! I take Iranian regime as the first and foremost responsible party in this mess and then US! My people stuck in this disaster of a power struggle.
What do you even think the words diplomacy and negotiation even mean? Of course it included independent oversight to any extend the US wanted. There is nothing that Iran can do to satisfy the requirements for peace because the goal of the US is war, Iran has no interest in war that leads to their destruction. For fuck sake it didn't even include any sanction relief! Wake the fuck up!
The magnitude of human suffering this will bring, civil war, sectarian violence, it all leads to hundreds of millions of people dying, millions of people displaced. Nobody likes the Iranian regime, just like nobody liked Saddam, its not the point. These wars are barbaric, not in the interests of anybody but Israel and a select few American arms dealers and pedophiles that propagandize their way to barely conscious sheep in the west clapping along to the barbarism AGAIN.
The obnoxious sanctimonious behavior of telling random Iranians to “wake the fuck up” as if we have a saying in what either Iranian government or the US side does. Go pound sand.
Evidently I care more about the hundreds of thousands of Iranian people that will die in this war than you. All you do is repeat the talking points of the Trump administration. I've seen this all before, the Iraq war broke peoples brains in exactly the same way, nobody learned anything at all.
Oh these poor Iranians need saviors, they don’t know what’s good for them. We know better. They don’t learn.
Don’t you see any similarity between what you say and any colonial. And my brain is broken?
Let me put it in a way that’s easy to comprehend for you. War is bad and Iranian government is as much responsible for this war as the US. I don’t understand how this is so triggering for some.
edit.
> Evidently I care more about the hundreds of thousands of Iranian people that will die in this war than you.
Did you care equally when thousands of Iranians were massacred in the streets by the government or the “care” activates only when convenient?
> Oh these poor Iranians need saviors, they don’t know what’s good for them. We know better. They don’t learn.
I'm anti-interventionism, you can't seriously reframe that into western chauvinism.
> War is bad and Iranian government is as much responsible for this war as the US. I don’t understand how this is so triggering for some.
Because its just not true, there would be no war without the US and Israel starting it, PERIOD. It's triggering because you could've said exactly the same thing about the Iraq war, its always the same disaster and people never listen or learn anything, that's why its frustrating.
> there would be no war without the US and Israel starting it, PERIOD.
“there would be no war without Hamas starting it, PERIOD.”
See how dishonest and ignorant that sounds?
For everyone else reading this thread as Iran being bombed: In 47 years of constant confrontation, islamic regime has not built one fucking bomb shelter for its people for these days. Let that sink in. Don’t believe these people who suddenly start to care about Iranian lives by taking the regime’s side and also don’t believe US officials when they say they do all these for our freedom.
> For a Persian you have very US republican boomer speaking patterns.
Most Persians I know will support just about anyone who will go against the regime, there were huge protests all over the world recently by the Iranian diaspora calling for the regime to be destroyed after tens of thousands of protesters were murdered by the regime all over Iran.
I presume its just an Iranian living in the west? Just look at the Miami Cubans cheering on the total energy blockade killing Cuba right now, its not entirely unusual for immigrants to sound like US republican boomers sadly.
'productive talks and reasonable progress' is what diplomats almost always say in negotiations in order to maintain a reasonable atmosphere for possible further negotiations, this is not rocket science.
They also said the US demands are completely unreasonable, which you conveniently left out.
TL;DR Iran wants essentially symbolic enrichment so they could save face domestically, the US wants it to limit the range of its missiles so they could not reach Israel when Israel attacks.
I want to avoid linking particular sources because I know it's easy to call this or that biased etc. but it's easy to look up even in Israeli sources.
Iran shortening the range of its missiles to the point where they can no longer reach Israel is what Iran giving up all its offensive capabilities means given that the missile threat is the only meaningful response Iran can have to a preemptive Israeli attack.
That's not the point. The point is that the attacks on Iran are not about the nuclear weapons. Iran entered the JCPOA and complied with it, it had completely suspended any nuclear weapons program. But that didn't matter for Israel and their sycophants in US foreign policy, because for them the nuclear weapons program is at best only one part of the problem. Their real problem is that Iran is an independent state in the region that refuses to accept Israel's occupation of Gaza, the West Bank, and parts of Lebanon, and that refuses to comply with US policies more broadly.
Overall the goal is not to stop Iran's nuclear program, though that is part of it. The goal would be to install a government in Iran that is friendly to Israel and the USA, or, failing that, to completely destroy their economy and defense such that they effectively can't act outside their own borders.
> The wall extends across the so-called Blue Line and has made “more than 4,000 square metres [43,055sq feet] of Lebanese territory inaccessible to the Lebanese people”
So you're saying Israel's occupation of Lebanon amounts to 4,000 square metres? About the area of an athletics track, I guess? (Not counting the bit inside the athletics track.)
How much land area, exactly, is another nation allowed to seize by force before it becomes unacceptable to you? It obviously is not that much given the tone of your message.
That's not the question I'm interested in. The question I'm interested in is whether it's correct to claim that Israel occupies "parts of Lebanon", particularly in the context in which the claim was made, next to the claim that it occupies Gaza and the West Bank.
The goalpost is "Israel's occupation of ... parts of Lebanon". Do you agree with
tsimionescu that Israel occupies parts of Lebanon? Can you back that up?
> In October, UNIFIL peacekeepers conducted a geospatial survey of a concrete T-wall erected by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) southwest of Yaroun. The survey confirmed that the wall crossed the Blue Line, rendering more than 4,000 square metres of Lebanese territory inaccessible to the Lebanese people.
Right, OK, I guess if you're complaining about some land about the area of an athletics running track then you are technically correct. I'm not sure that's what people would have understood by tsimonescu's original claim that Israel is occupying parts of Lebanon.
And what exactly is Israel doing there, on that land the size of an athletics track? Something very nefarious?
How much land area, exactly, is another nation allowed to seize by force before it becomes unacceptable to you? It obviously is not that much given the tone of your message.
The south. It's not a real occupation like the west bank, it's more of a 'raid and pillage' thing. No rape reported yet, so it isn't at all like the West Bank.
there are many reasons to do nuclear research beyond medicine, for batteries like the ones powering the voyager space craft, nuclear reactors come in a wide variety of configurations, and many of them actualy produce more radioactive elements that then need to be managed.
60% is nothing,80% is nothing, it needs to be 93%++, and LOTS of it to build a bomb, and given the number of bombs already arrayed around Iran, they would need 100's
and all the infrastructure to become a credible threat , for which they plainly dont have the money to afford.
The wildly unpopular leaders going after Iran need a scapegoat, or rather a continious supply of scapegoats, but have failed to recognise that the world is moving past them.
60% is actually very close to 93%. To go from natural uranium (<1% U235) to 60% represents the vast majority of the effort. From 60% to 93% is actually quite quick; most of the material is already U235. And they already have enough to build maybe a dozen bombs.
They also have (had?) a very active ballistic missile program, and have conducted implosion experiments.
The constellation of evidence is quite clear: Iran is a threshold nuclear state with all the pieces necessary to credibly threaten the region (and soon the US homeland) with nuclear weapons.
We've gone from, "The amazing Islamic Republic of Iran isn't even capable of building deliverable nuclear weapons and they have lots of peaceful reasons to do enrichment to 60%!" to "Yeah OK, they are capable and they are indeed enriching Uranium for their weapons program--hey, look over here! USA and Israel!!!"
So they have medical grade uranium facility under a mountain? If that’s all they need, wouldn’t it be easier to just purchase it from a third party instead of investing billions of dollars hiding from Israel?
They have a military base under a mountain, not a uranium enrichment facility.
Building military defenses against crazed, genocidal, racial supremacists who routinely fire missiles at your country seems more like sensible forward planning to me rather than evidence of a guilty conscience.
It was Trump who cancelled to JCPOA. Also, sending Witkoff and Kushner as negotiators is already an obvious sign the US is dishonest about preventing conflicts through diplomacy, otherwise they would send experienced diplomats. It is really the US Epstein Class Deep State government to blame here.
They could have named the DOD the "Department Of Peace", instead they called it the "Department Of War", showing their true face and trajectory.
At this point it is really the people of the US to rise up and implement a Regime Change from within to change things for the better.
My friend, that's been SOP from the beginning [1]. The question you have to ask is whether the US actually respects the other parties to the agreement.
Somehow world will close eyes again ... Somehow we need to bring back moral standards that we all have deep in ourselves and screw this money world me all made together... I dont have answers or ideas how but this is just nonsense
US has been always playing god, cunning manipulations all over the world. Most of the Europe was silent until recently when Greenland under threat. US benefits from every war either oil, rare metals, trade, weapons, there is always an agenda even though they are not directly involved.
I hope you’re right but not too confident that will be the case. I wish EU leadership wouldn’t be as spineless as it is. I’m afraid they will accept any opportunity to make things feel as if they are back to the old normal if they are given the opportunity. And that would of course backfire, but long term thinking hasn’t been our strength over the past 3 decades or so…
Or you can blame Israel and Zionists lobbying the governments and media that radicals will crawl out under everyone's beds. (PS: it started before Libya)
The US didn't start the Lybia thing, France (and particularly Sarkozy) did, and the US felt obligated to follow up. In Hillary leaked emails, you can read about it. The CIA basically saying 'the successor France want is X, let's try to put our choice as the leader of the next Lybia instead', and a week later, the french/DGSE candidate for Khadafi succession died.
Lybia was 100% a French war the US took over. Sarkozy's subordinates were extremely close to the Lybia regime that helped illegally finance his presidential election, at least according to French judges, so it was also also a very political war.
You see, Iran is sanctioned by the west for decades now, and these sanctions eroded the Iranian economy greatly, causing much pain and suffering for the people of Iran.
These sanctions a major reason for the protest, so they are largely legitimate. To archive regime change, mix in (paid) violent protesters with AK's and Molotov Cocktails and add a Truth Social Post like
> If Iran shots and violently kills peaceful protesters, which is their custom, the United States of America will come to their rescue. We are locked and loaded and ready to go. Thank you for your attention to this matter! President DONALD J.TRUMP
> The FDD is a think tank based in Washington, D.C., United States.[6][7] It has been described as a pro-Israel, anti-Iran lobby group
> CEO is Mark Dubowitz
> Mark Dubowitz is [...] a proponent of sanctions against Iran[2] and was a leading critic of the Iran nuclear agreement, officially called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.
Conclusion: U.S./Israel "Think Tank" pushing for regime change in Iran financed by Isreal/Wallstreet money. So boring, always the same playbook.
Of course, the underlying goal is to deny China oil exports from Iran. Venezuela as a major oil supplier to China is already coup d'état successfully. Go U.S.A, go!
It sadly never happened for the perpetrators of the Iraq/Ukraine/Libya/Afghan/Syria/Yugoslav/... wars. Remember Collateral Murder? And that was just the tip of the iceberg. Also, no one really cared about all the veterans back home, many of whom suffered and still suffer from PTSD. The U.S. truly is the biggest sh*thole on earth.
The fact that it didn't happen for the those previous administrations is why it's happening again now.
If those previous administrations had been tried for their various crimes, and the guilty parties were cooling their heels in a jail cell, then we probably wouldn't be seeing this action tonight.
"If those previous administrations had been tried for their various crimes"
and yeah who is gonna charge them ???? US have (arguably) strongest military on earth, who can put justice to them if not themselves ???? and themselves I mean US Gov. which is would never happen since every administration have "blood" in some form and another
The problem is that nearly everyone in the US national security establishment believes that the US should be involved in lots of wars. You may recall how little sympathy Biden got for pulling out of Afghanistan. I genuinely don’t think you could assemble Washington staff with the foreign policy expertise a president requires without ending up with a majority who support bombing Maduro.
Withdrawing from Afghanistan may have occurred under Biden, but it was Trump who made the decision to pull out. The only change Biden made was delaying our withdraw by a couple of months.
For instance, such a system would be immune to corruption. That's one of the major reasons such a system will likely never appear.
reply