Iran doesn’t have the capacity to attack the US directly, you could simply withdraw troops from the middle east and cut off Israel. From there it’s a matter of offered concessions or otherwise ignoring the region and hoping things restablize.
But then we objectively, officially, lose the war. The presumption of American military superiority would be destroyed, which would spell the end of the American empire, and they cannot let that happen. Of course the perception of our superiority is already screwed because Iran made god bleed, but that only makes Trump and friends more desperate to win.
The US has lost all but two of the wars it has committed itself to since WW2, with Korea and Desert Storm being seaming flukes at this point. What’s another mark upon that record, better to cut losses than be further humiliated at this point.
The empire is already burning let’s not send further legions into Germania.
I think this is different given the context of this war. It’s not an insurgency or an unfamiliar jungle it’s just a super power losing against a “lesser” military. In the process also losing influence over 20% of the world’s oil supply, which is the oil that gives the American petrodollar its value. This stupid ass and unnecessary war could change the power structure of the entire world.
It’s still effectively an asymmetric war something that basically favors home field advantage to the point of absurdity. Winning is basically impossible given that Iran has been preparing for this exact scenario for decades, any escalation will worsen the look of the US since the current dipshits in charge don’t know how to do jack shit.
Honestly pulling out before it turns into the US equivalent of the Soviet-Afghan war is basically the only way forward that doesn’t lead towards federal collapse IMO. Those in Congress have an active incentive to prevent that from happening while also working as a great propaganda win for those who side against it. The damage is already done cutting losses is the best that can be done at this point.
Our? Nah Americas. Personally I’m a Californian nationalist and recognized that the US has to collapse for my wants to come true. Problem is I’m also annoyed by incompetency and wish I could be wrong so as to not scorn my ancestors who actually had a grudging faith in the government. Regardless we’ll have to wait and see how things pan out after the mid terms, my money is that something will happen either during the elections or before January which will shake things up.
It’s more of a question of what they have to gain. They can instantly get a lot of money to stop the attacks. It also gives them the biggest tool they have back. If they continue to stop shipping, and require a toll, they don’t have that as leverage to use later. It’s just the standard. Think about if they were doing that before the invasion. The US would just leave and give them nothing, because it’s the status quo.
Which is why I included the option of just abandoning the region. Frankly the middle east is just a liability and has been since the 70s oil crisis. It’s a statement on foolishness that not only has reliance on oil held steady but expanded. If a forceful material change is required then so be it.
You completely ignored my point. Leaving the region include stopping all aids to Israel and aiding all sanctions on Iran and for this to happen you need the majority of the congress to approve it which is not the case right now
The US opened this conflict up by bombing a pre-teen girls school in Iran, and civilan infrastructure-- war crimes and terrorism. And the “west” has been supporting the Palestinian holocaust, war crimes and racism conducted by the zionists for 80 years. I could go on and on about all the crimes that we have seen, but its old news.
I dont think many countries in the “west” get to unironically use that “terrorism” word anymore. Its especially meaningless when we pretend its a travesty then do it nonstop ourselves.
The problem is that Trump tore up the agreement limiting uranium enrichment. So at this point he’s more or less guaranteed that they get a nuclear weapon.
If iran want one they would already have one. The reality is that the religious decree that ban nukes is still active and believed by Iran. I don’t see it getting overwrited by the new leader
Yeah. People in the west can’t imagine ideology or religion seriously influencing politics any more. A sort of cynical post-democratic world view. But that’s just false, the religious fatwa against mass destruction of human life is actually believed. Westeners simply can’t imagine people thinking different any more.
And if not that, Iran just showed their strongest weapon and that is cutting off oil flow. Having a nuclear weapon doesn’t help them much - who could they realistically threaten with it? Like even in this current war they couldn’t realistically threaten to use nukes against anybody. And it would lead to more states in the region also wanting nuclear weapons so overall it could be bad for them.
PS: Just to add, I don’t agree with Iran on questions of gender equality and LGB(T)Q rights. But even as an atheist I’ve started to prefer a theocracy to a neoliberal pseudo-democracy where they believe in nothing.
That’s like forcing someone to choose how they want to eat shit. Definitely would rather it be nicely seasoned but the entire objective is to avoid eating any shit at all. Both choices are loss conditions.
It’s not like I’m excited about it either. I’d much rather they believed in socialism. But this is about fundamental questions. Like: Should a politician serve the wellfare of the people and build a better future for them?
If you could get the democratic or republican politicians to speak the truth, I’m convinced about 99% of them would say no. They don’t really have any ideological framework backing them any more except the neoliberalism as an absence of any moral responsibility. Because they have been selected and filtered by a process for this. Voters don’t even really expect them to either. So there is a fundamental quality missing.
Religion might force me to eat some shit but actually lived religion that is not performative or corrupted profit scheme like evangelism does force some politicians to have a minimum of humanity. Like rejecting nuclear weapons on the basis that they are morally wrong.
He does bring up a point that religious frameworks tend to influence behavior much more powerfully than material incentives do. Outside the context of theocracy being the alternative; living in a post-democracy neoliberal technocracy is miserable. Our politicians don’t believe in anything and the people come to expect this and then they don’t believe in anything. No one has any shared values or morals outside of “whatever I have to do to get ahead”.
As of yet we have not come up with a way to get socialism to have the same influence that religion does, if we can’t come up with an answer to " how do we get people to believe in things" then we’re well in truely screwed.
The problem with war, is that there isn’t really an “off” switch. Which is why it’s fucking stupid to start one.
Iran doesn’t have the capacity to attack the US directly, you could simply withdraw troops from the middle east and cut off Israel. From there it’s a matter of offered concessions or otherwise ignoring the region and hoping things restablize.
That would be conceding their ability to block the Hormuz strait. Major geostrstegic defeat.
But then we objectively, officially, lose the war. The presumption of American military superiority would be destroyed, which would spell the end of the American empire, and they cannot let that happen. Of course the perception of our superiority is already screwed because Iran made god bleed, but that only makes Trump and friends more desperate to win.
The US has lost all but two of the wars it has committed itself to since WW2, with Korea and Desert Storm being seaming flukes at this point. What’s another mark upon that record, better to cut losses than be further humiliated at this point.
The empire is already burning let’s not send further legions into Germania.
I think this is different given the context of this war. It’s not an insurgency or an unfamiliar jungle it’s just a super power losing against a “lesser” military. In the process also losing influence over 20% of the world’s oil supply, which is the oil that gives the American petrodollar its value. This stupid ass and unnecessary war could change the power structure of the entire world.
It’s still effectively an asymmetric war something that basically favors home field advantage to the point of absurdity. Winning is basically impossible given that Iran has been preparing for this exact scenario for decades, any escalation will worsen the look of the US since the current dipshits in charge don’t know how to do jack shit.
Honestly pulling out before it turns into the US equivalent of the Soviet-Afghan war is basically the only way forward that doesn’t lead towards federal collapse IMO. Those in Congress have an active incentive to prevent that from happening while also working as a great propaganda win for those who side against it. The damage is already done cutting losses is the best that can be done at this point.
I agree they should pull out, but I don’t think they see that as an option anymore. Hubris will be our downfall.
Our? Nah Americas. Personally I’m a Californian nationalist and recognized that the US has to collapse for my wants to come true. Problem is I’m also annoyed by incompetency and wish I could be wrong so as to not scorn my ancestors who actually had a grudging faith in the government. Regardless we’ll have to wait and see how things pan out after the mid terms, my money is that something will happen either during the elections or before January which will shake things up.
Iran has shown willingness to negotiate. I just think that at this point they just don’t want to negotiate with Trump anymore.
I’m not sure what they have to lose by just ignoring the US and keeping the Oman side of the strait more or less closed.
It sounds like shipping via their toll system is going fairly well.
It’s more of a question of what they have to gain. They can instantly get a lot of money to stop the attacks. It also gives them the biggest tool they have back. If they continue to stop shipping, and require a toll, they don’t have that as leverage to use later. It’s just the standard. Think about if they were doing that before the invasion. The US would just leave and give them nothing, because it’s the status quo.
Simple theorically but most of the congress will refuse to give any major concession to Iran necessary to end the war
Which is why I included the option of just abandoning the region. Frankly the middle east is just a liability and has been since the 70s oil crisis. It’s a statement on foolishness that not only has reliance on oil held steady but expanded. If a forceful material change is required then so be it.
You completely ignored my point. Leaving the region include stopping all aids to Israel and aiding all sanctions on Iran and for this to happen you need the majority of the congress to approve it which is not the case right now
Iran will turn to terrorism
The US opened this conflict up by bombing a pre-teen girls school in Iran, and civilan infrastructure-- war crimes and terrorism. And the “west” has been supporting the Palestinian holocaust, war crimes and racism conducted by the zionists for 80 years. I could go on and on about all the crimes that we have seen, but its old news.
I dont think many countries in the “west” get to unironically use that “terrorism” word anymore. Its especially meaningless when we pretend its a travesty then do it nonstop ourselves.
Terrorism like US or like Israel.
Twenty years of listening to you fuckers say this about Afghanistan, but we lost, and where are all the 9/11s?
I hear you, but in this case there is one.
Just withdraw, and stop sending money to Israel. It’s literally that simple to stop this war.
The problem is that Trump tore up the agreement limiting uranium enrichment. So at this point he’s more or less guaranteed that they get a nuclear weapon.
If iran want one they would already have one. The reality is that the religious decree that ban nukes is still active and believed by Iran. I don’t see it getting overwrited by the new leader
Yeah. People in the west can’t imagine ideology or religion seriously influencing politics any more. A sort of cynical post-democratic world view. But that’s just false, the religious fatwa against mass destruction of human life is actually believed. Westeners simply can’t imagine people thinking different any more.
And if not that, Iran just showed their strongest weapon and that is cutting off oil flow. Having a nuclear weapon doesn’t help them much - who could they realistically threaten with it? Like even in this current war they couldn’t realistically threaten to use nukes against anybody. And it would lead to more states in the region also wanting nuclear weapons so overall it could be bad for them.
PS: Just to add, I don’t agree with Iran on questions of gender equality and LGB(T)Q rights. But even as an atheist I’ve started to prefer a theocracy to a neoliberal pseudo-democracy where they believe in nothing.
I was with you until the PS.
That’s like forcing someone to choose how they want to eat shit. Definitely would rather it be nicely seasoned but the entire objective is to avoid eating any shit at all. Both choices are loss conditions.
It’s not like I’m excited about it either. I’d much rather they believed in socialism. But this is about fundamental questions. Like: Should a politician serve the wellfare of the people and build a better future for them?
If you could get the democratic or republican politicians to speak the truth, I’m convinced about 99% of them would say no. They don’t really have any ideological framework backing them any more except the neoliberalism as an absence of any moral responsibility. Because they have been selected and filtered by a process for this. Voters don’t even really expect them to either. So there is a fundamental quality missing.
Religion might force me to eat some shit but actually lived religion that is not performative or corrupted profit scheme like evangelism does force some politicians to have a minimum of humanity. Like rejecting nuclear weapons on the basis that they are morally wrong.
Ehhh, nuance.
He does bring up a point that religious frameworks tend to influence behavior much more powerfully than material incentives do. Outside the context of theocracy being the alternative; living in a post-democracy neoliberal technocracy is miserable. Our politicians don’t believe in anything and the people come to expect this and then they don’t believe in anything. No one has any shared values or morals outside of “whatever I have to do to get ahead”.
As of yet we have not come up with a way to get socialism to have the same influence that religion does, if we can’t come up with an answer to " how do we get people to believe in things" then we’re well in truely screwed.
It’s not stupid if you’re getting kickbacks from defense contractors.