Tensions in the Middle East

[Doctorfever]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

Even in the unlikely scenario that Iranians eventually get a government they want, it still doesn't mean the US decision to go to war was a wise one. The track record of these types of interventions in the Middle East isn't a good one, and the results always seem to be decades of instability and carnage.

Then you add on top of that the amount of civilian lives lost in the fighting, the soldiers killed in combat, the destruction of infrastructure, the immense cost to US taxpayers... not to mention the destabilization of the Middle East as a whole, and other risks such as the rise of terror groups like ISIS...

No, there really is no honest way you can justify this war, IMO.

If there is a government who takes over that the people of Iran choose, you don’t think this will be a success?

Soldiers killed in combat and civilian lives lost are both terrible things. We can all agree on that. You have to weigh in the 30,000 ~ 50,000 civilians recently killed by the Regime. There is a really good chance that that would have happened again. Probably why quite a few citizens in Iran supported outside intervention. That could be a justification for the war.

[TherapyforGlencross]

Terrifying photography coming out in Iran of their oil depots being struck. Hellscape.

Escalation only increasing

[Harry Lime]

They had right IMO, early on when they targeted government building, and knocked out a chunk of theocratic leadership. The more this revolves into general warfare, the farther this gets from necessary regime change.

[Manhattanboy]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

Even in the unlikely scenario that Iranians eventually get a government they want, it still doesn't mean the US decision to go to war was a wise one.

That’s an odd take, unless the thinking is that Iranians want an even more regional destabilizing, terror-manufacturing repressive regime that offers even less for them in the future than the one in power now.

[afc wimbledon]

nm

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Manhattanboy

That’s an odd take, unless the thinking is that Iranians want an even more regional destabilizing, terror-manufacturing repressive regime that offers even less for them in the future than the one in power now.

Here's the thing, the Shia and Sunni want different Governments, as do the Bahia and Zoroastrians then there are the ethnic groups, the Kurds, Aziris and Baluchs want their own idea of Iran, the Kurds and Baluch don't even want to be in Iran, they went their own country
Then there are the external groups that will intervene, the Taliban and Pakistan Governments will be stirring things up as will the Saudi's

Iran is a country the British invented in the 1920's just like Iraq, the most likely outcome of this is a long bloody ethno religious civil war that leaves 4 or 500,000 dead and destabilizes the region dragging Iraq and Pakistan into the fray, Pakistan in case you forgot has nukes

If you think Oil is expensive now just wait until some nutter lets off a dirty bomb in Bandar Abbass

[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by Doctorfever

If there is a government who takes over that the people of Iran choose, you don’t think this will be a success?

Soldiers killed in combat and civilian lives lost are both terrible things. We can all agree on that. You have to weigh in the 30,000 ~ 50,000 civilians recently killed by the Regime. There is a really good chance that that would have happened again. Probably why quite a few citizens in Iran supported outside intervention. That could be a justification for the war.

Originally Posted by Manhattanboy

That’s an odd take, unless the thinking is that Iranians want an even more regional destabilizing, terror-manufacturing repressive regime that offers even less for them in the future than the one in power now.

The thinking is you have to weigh in the chances of success before doing something like this. You might succeed, but then again you might not. You might replace the regime with a government the Iranians want, but then again, you might not. You might replace the regime with one that doesn't kill/imprison protestors, but then again, you might not.

And if you don't succeed, you've just created a whole lot of chaos and instability at the cost of lives, infrastructure, taxpayer dollars, etc, and not really created a better situation for the people of Iran (or maybe slightly better, but not nearly enough to justify the costs).

From a logistical standpoint, I don't see how Iran goes from what it is now to a country with a stable, decent government, and minimal violence taking place in the country. There are many different groups that have different ideas of what the future of Iran should be. I see decades of fighting and violent power struggles.

Then you look at the obvious problems going on in the US, the same government that supposedly can't afford to provide a very basic level of health care to its citizens can nevertheless afford another expensive Middle East quagmire war? Nothing makes sense with this Trump regime. It's all lies & fraud...

[Looch City]

Tehran residents now living in thick black smoke as Iran's oil depots have been hit.

Definitely the freedom they asked for, right?

The black smoke is good for you.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Looch City

Tehran residents now living in thick black smoke as Iran's oil depots have been hit.

Definitely the freedom they asked for, right?

The black smoke is good for you.

https://bsky.app/profile/youranoncen.../3mgkkvqdcm223
Much fire. Three cheers for the good guys.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

The thinking is you have to weigh in the chances of success before doing something like this. You might succeed, but then again you might not. You might replace the regime with a government the Iranians want, but then again, you might not. You might replace the regime with one that doesn't kill/imprison protestors, but then again, you might not.

And if you don't succeed, you've just created a whole lot of chaos and instability at the cost of lives, infrastructure, taxpayer dollars, etc, and not really created a better situation for the people of Iran (or maybe slightly better, but not nearly enough to justify the costs).

From a logistical standpoint, I don't see how Iran goes from what it is now to a country with a stable, decent government, and minimal violence taking place in the country. There are many different groups that have different ideas of what the future of Iran should be. I see decades of fighting and violent power struggles.

Then you look at the obvious problems going on in the US, the same government that supposedly can't afford to provide a very basic level of health care to its citizens can nevertheless afford another expensive Middle East quagmire war? Nothing makes sense with this Trump regime. It's all lies & fraud...

It gets worse as ‘ratcheting up the pressure’ means more civilian infrastructure gets hit, even if dial-use. Now life that was hard enough to spark mass revolt a month ago becomes even harder.

[Mathgod]

https://www.cnn.com/2026/03/08/world...kes-digvid-hnk

It's raining oil, and getting into the drinking water. The greater Tehran area has a population of about 16 million people. What could possibly go wrong?

[activeStick]

America also attacked their water supply

https://twitter.com/user/status/2030434514288140516

[Sr. Mints]

Is he telling on himself again? Is that the kind of #### going on at Epstein Island?

[Firebot]

There is a huge ongoing disconnect between Israel and the USA objectives with this war, and the US reaction to the oil depot bombing it is a clear example

This reddit comment sums it up:

"Trumps goal is a quick war to make a deal and parade it for midterms. Israel's goal is complete destruction of Iran becoming a failed state. To say they have opposing goals is an understatement "

108$ oil is already achieved and the severe impact is likely to cause a significant market crash on Monday (circuit breaker likely). I mean there isn't even any illusion of winning hearts and minds. This is pure chaos all of Trump's doing.

[5abi]

My bet Iran is jury rigging launchers for a last stand salvo against aramco facilities.

The regime knows it’s done, might as well take trump and the global economy with them

[activeStick]

Is destroying a country's water supply illegal? I would've thought so given its impact to the civilian population, or maybe it's fine if we in the west do it?

[Looch City]

Originally Posted by activeStick

Is destroying a country's water supply illegal? I would've thought so given its impact to the civilian population, or maybe it's fine if we in the west do it?

They were using the water to enrich weapons grade uranium, so it's fair game.

[5abi]

Crude at $110

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by activeStick

Is destroying a country's water supply illegal? I would've thought so given its impact to the civilian population, or maybe it's fine if we in the west do it?

[Manhattanboy]

Originally Posted by activeStick

Is destroying a country's water supply illegal? I would've thought so given its impact to the civilian population, or maybe it's fine if we in the west do it?

Don’t know about water but my understanding is that firing missiles tipped with cluster bombs at civilian populations is illegal.