The point wasn't for him to stop being overthrown (that was a goal since at least the mid 90's). The point was that it no longer justified American or Israeli air strikes on his territory. It bought time, and allowed for fixed-wing air support to stop. Hell, he damn well almost won the war for a minute there.
You're assessment of Iran is just wrong, as they've been engaged in an international irregular warfare campaign to spread the "Islamic Revolution" across the entire region. They're not complete fanatical psychos, but they're also not naive (I wouldn't be surprised if this justifies what amounts to a military coup where the ayatollah is 'tragically killed by the American pig-dog bombing campaign').
Normally, I'd agree, but when it comes to Leftism and Islam, internal violence is so perpetually common that it's really a sorting algorithm. The loser of the conflict gains absolute supremacy. No one will dissent from them, no one will try to revolt against the power structure, and any of the old loyalists will turncoat, die, or flee. It sounds like then this is a good state to keep the Islamic world in. But that's not really my point. My point is that someone will win. The internal violence is just a sorting mechanism. This is, in fact, one of the longest periods of time where the Islamic world. If we were smart, we'd expel all Muslims from all of our countries and point nukes at every Muslim country because one day, they will launch a pre-emptive strike. It's one of the reasons it's good not to have Iran with nukes, they're more likely to use them than the Soviet Union or China were, and the Soviets tried to launch.
The point wasn't for him to stop being overthrown (that was a goal since at least the mid 90's). The point was that it no longer justified American or Israeli air strikes on his territory. It bought time, and allowed for fixed-wing air support to stop. Hell, he damn well almost won the war for a minute there.
You're assessment of Iran is just wrong, as they've been engaged in an international irregular warfare campaign to spread the "Islamic Revolution" across the entire region. They're not complete fanatical psychos, but they're also not naive (I wouldn't be surprised if this justifies what amounts to a military coup where the ayatollah is 'tragically killed by the American pig-dog bombing campaign').
The region is already Islamic.
Yes but it's the wrong Islamic.
This is a pretty common thread in the history of all Islamic civil wars.
What do you mean? Iran is Shia and backs Hamas who is Sunni.
/u/Gizortnik trying to architect your opinions but is vastly under-qualified to do so.
All the better, infighting amongst our enemies is desired.
Normally, I'd agree, but when it comes to Leftism and Islam, internal violence is so perpetually common that it's really a sorting algorithm. The loser of the conflict gains absolute supremacy. No one will dissent from them, no one will try to revolt against the power structure, and any of the old loyalists will turncoat, die, or flee. It sounds like then this is a good state to keep the Islamic world in. But that's not really my point. My point is that someone will win. The internal violence is just a sorting mechanism. This is, in fact, one of the longest periods of time where the Islamic world. If we were smart, we'd expel all Muslims from all of our countries and point nukes at every Muslim country because one day, they will launch a pre-emptive strike. It's one of the reasons it's good not to have Iran with nukes, they're more likely to use them than the Soviet Union or China were, and the Soviets tried to launch.