Timeline is nearly complete
(twitter.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (18)
sorted by:
I think he could absolutely be prepared for a strike on Iran. You'll remember: he already did, twice.
The question is whether or not he'll invade.
Of course he's not going to invade. He's not that stupid.
Previous times, he had a casus belli to order a strike, one of which was in Iraq and one of which was called off.
This time, the justification appears to be "these people need to unconditionally surrender because a rogue state launched a war of aggression against them to prevent me from negotiating with them".
If Iran was getting nuclear material (which I can't say for sure) that might be causus belli.
Alternatively, we could also say the causes belli was that Iran basically sponsored October 7th, so this has basically been a slow rolling Israeli Iran War for 2 years.
I'm a bit concerned how quiet the rest of the Arab world seems to be with Iran's fate. One of the princes in Saudi Arabia came out and called the ayatollah's "Hilter". Sure looks like they are taking out a rival.
Nope. It's not an act of war. It might be illegal under the NPT, which they have voluntarily signed, but that provides for appropriate remedies in such cases. Do you really think anyone would sign such a treaty if any violation would be "we'll bomb you"?
No proof is provided for that, nor was America the target of October 7th, nor does America have any alliances requiring it to do that.
By that standard, Russia is free to attack European countries that provide weapons for fake Ukraine.
Let's not be Trump cultists. Let's call out wrong where wrong exists. There is zero justification for this outrage. Planning a meeting, having a rogue state strike them 2 days before, and then joining in? The world already knows of American treachery, but this makes the Japanese at Pearl Harbor look good. Worse than treachery in international affairs (which isn't exactly common, as you can see in Mearsheimer), it's a Shakespearean betrayal of his own base, whom he assured for years that war with Iran is bad, regime change is bad, foreign interference is bad - only to follow the wishes of the people who bribed him.
Yeah, I guess when I said "causus belli" I was really saying it was Israel's causus belli more than the US's.
We can say that it's not an act of war to get nuclear weapons, but Israel would expect to be the primary target of those weapons, or it would at lease reduce the likelihood of their strike capability against Iran, which is all that any power needs to justify an attack. Not saying it's legal. In fact I'm saying that international law is basically a fiction developed among coalitions.
Well.... normally the answer is yes. The issue is that Russia doesn't want to expand the war to NATO, and NATO does. Same reason we didn't attack China or the USSR for helping either North Korea or North Vietnam.
This is not worse than Pearl Harbor. Frankly, I don't think there's any question that Iran was supportive of the attack on October 7th. Something as bad as Pearl Harbor would be like Israel bombing us.
More than anything, this looks like Israel finalizing an end to their war, but they are, for some reason, wanting the US to take the final step of a ground invasion and regime change which will obviously fail.
I don't think he's been bribed, I think he genuinely doesn't want Iran to get nukes because he's a boomer that opposes the ayatollah. The issue is that Israel seemed to plan to evoke a US invasion of Iran, and that's a very stupid step.