Iran is certainly an enemy of ours. They do fund terrorists and they have killed Americans by proxy. So permanently reducing their power isn't the worst thing in the world.
I would prefer that it would be impossible for Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon. I'm not informed enough to understand if their program is actually peaceful or not, but they should just stick to oil.
The Iranian people would likely be better off if the ayatollahs were usurped. I say this because Persians are generally better behaved than Arabs and the country is firmly Shiite, so it might not be an Iraq/Lybia/Egypt situation.
All of this goes out the window if:
- The US commits direct military forces
- the strikes do not permanently degrade Iran's power
The US has been funding and supporting terrorists for decades. And I'm not just talking about Israel here.
Why? Pakistan has nukes. India has nukes. England and France which are turning into Muslim nations have nukes. Israel a fanatical Jewish supremacist state has nukes. The US which is controlled by a foreign government has nukes. North Korea has nukes.
Criminals prefer their victims not having guns. Same shit.
Like the Iraqi were better off with Saddam or the Afghani without the Taliban?
I mean what the fuck is wrong with simply not getting involved at all? What is the US doing in the Middle East in the first place besides playing Israels attack dog? There is no upside to bombing Iran.
The world isn't a neighborhood and countries aren't people. An unfair balance of arms is the ideal situation. More independent actors with nukes is less ideal.
Obviously the better solution would be to yank Israel's $4.5B allowance until they simmer down. Sadly we don't live in that world. The only red line we have the power to hold - somewhat - is whether the US gets directly involved.
Is it? Why? Because the big fish can bully the small fish without consequences?
Considering the fact that since the end of the second world war the world has been continuously drenched in blood by the bitch fight of two super powers who divided the world between them I'm willing to test the alternative.
Permanently. And then ban AIPAC. And kick out every dual citizen.
Yeah, because it's better to have the ability to bully rather than be bullied.
I can understand that to a point. I think a growing number of people are hoping Iran actually gets a nuke so Israel will pipe down.
If everyone has nukes nobody can bully anyone anymore. And honestly I'd rather be someone who can curb stomp a bully than to be able to bully someone.
Here, do you mean unipolarity or bipolarity? There's quite a bit of difference. Most IR would agree with you that bipolarity is more peaceful than multipolarity, but not for unipolarity. You could see that in the unipolar moment.
Nuclear unipolarity hasn't existed since 1949, so yeah.
Oil. Earlier, ideological penetration by communism. Ideological justifications are a cover for Realpolitik, not vice versa. They picked a good location for their country.
Nato fucked up by not making Iraq and Afghanistan ban Islam, even if they would have to install a more blatant puppet government to do it.
And instantly turn the entire population and the rest of the region and the entirety of the Muslim world into dedicated enemies? You didn't think this through.
I was not suggesting allowing the muslims to live.
Feeling edgy today I see. What about the Jews?