Iran is pulling the same trick now, claiming it "won" just because the regime did not fall (yet). This is despite having lost most of their conventional army, navy, and air force, and having also mostly lost control of the straits of Hormuz.
(You could say the Taliban were even more thoroughly 'defeated' in Afghanistan while the country was occupied by the US, but it can hardly be said that it was a victory for the US either, given what happened as soon as they left).
No it wasn't. If Iran's only goal is to survive then it would have made peace with the USA and surrounding Middle Eastern territories decades ago.
This whole war is happening because Iran had great political ambitions than just thriving on its own.
Iran has been funding proxy terrorist groups for a long time now, specifically because it is trying to achieve larger goals than just surviving.
And on those fronts, well those proxy groups have taken a ton of damage and aren't long for this world.
As I just said before, if this was their only goal, they could have had it decades ago by choosing peace instead of funding proxy milita groups en mass.
The fact that they fund all they proxy groups shows that actually yes they have other goals beyond surviving (They they are quickly failing to achieve as their proxy groups get dismantled), and they are actually willing to risk war and risk their survival to attempt to achieve them.
The only durable way achieve peace in the Mideast is the collapse of Iran and of its regional proxies. Disarming Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis is a necessity before things like rebuilding Gaza is possible at all.
There, fixed it for you. No charge.
Its called mutually assured destruction bro. Every country in the world would use their nukes if they were actually under threat of destruction.
Thats the point of having nukes. For them to be used as a deterent against collapse.
> All the more reason to check
They have the nukes already dude! They aren't going away. They aren't going to be destroyed. And the nukes don't disappear just because funding stops going to them.
The point being, the destruction of Israel would just result in all of their enemies being destroyed along with them, so you better hope it doesn't happen.
They aren't going to massively change their demographics. They will never agree to that, and they would have to be invaded to achieve anything close to that. Which brings up back to them haveing 100+ nuclear weapons.
This goal of destroying israel, or massively changing their demographics has caused hundreds of thousands of arabs to die, over and over again, wasting on a doomed goal, seeing as Israel has a modern military and nuclear weapons that they would absolutely use if their military was at risk of being defeat.
The actual peaceful solutions look something like Jordan or Egypt, which are perfectly able to be at peace.
Again, the best solution would have been if Britain had refused to budge against Zionist terrorist attacks on innocent Brits, and instead prosecuted and executed them brutally, instituted a ruthless and militant martial rule there and shot all agitators on sight, and also done things like tax breaks for mixed marriages, etc. Since that golden opportunity for sanity and stability is gone, we have to see what the current options are.
Nobody is going to nuke people over trade.
But, if the only thing that happens is that there are trade sanctions, well seeing as Israel considers changing up their country's demographics an existential threat, well it isn't going to end the state of Israel and nothing short of military action will cause that to happen.
Its certainly possible to motivate Israel to make some changes, but its not going to let itself be destroyed, nor will it ever accept 10 million immigrants into the country, and there would have to be military action to every make that happen.
The point being, Israel isn't going away. Its not going to be destroy. And if it was every a real threat, well they'd use the nukes.
Peace is certainly possible though. If the only thing you want is for both the existing middle east militant groups and Israel to stop fighting each other, and everyone exists where they are today, then great that peace is absolutely possible.
>Peace is certainly possible though. If the only thing you want is for both the existing middle east militant groups and Israel to stop fighting each other, and everyone exists where they are today, then great that peace is absolutely possible.
It is, and under current situations its only going to happen if Israel is occupied by a brutal external military force that uses complete merciless totalitarian approach to any terrorism from any side. Nothing short of that is a peaceful solution unfortunately.
No actually. They would rather fight till the end than be ethnically cleansed (the vast majority of people being born there). They will never do that, and it would require military action to get anywhere close to that.
At which point it brings us back to the fact that they have a modern military and nuclear weapons, so military action won't work.
> What they do next is not my concern
Well, if peace isn't possible what would almost certainly happen is that most of the Palestinians will be kicked out. I mean, if it is that or them being kicked out, like what you propose, obviously they will fight to win.
> Nothing short of that is a peaceful solution unfortunately.
Oh I fully agree that the arab population isn't going to stop fighting. What is almost certainly going to happen is that peace won't happen and Israel will simply Win The Conflict, by exporting most of the gazan population.
I mean, the rest of the world is barely doing anything against them. They have little reason not to at this point, if peace isn't possible.
Which is sad, but hey. Thats war. It is unfortunate though just how many arab lives have been scarificed for nothing though, failing to achieve an impossible goal. Impossible because Israel is never going to let itself be destroy nor ethnically cleansed, and the rest of the world is barely doing anything against it, and, you know that modern military + nuclear weapons.
> And if they want to use nukes over such an insane point
Nukes would only be used in the case of a military invasion that seriously threatens them. If its just trade embargoes, and local militant conflicts, Israel would simply weather the storm, and/or kick out all the palestinians if they don't stop throwing their lives away for nothing.
> then the world far outnumbers
The rest of the world isn't doing shit right now dude. And the point is that no invasion is going to happen of Israel, precisely because of the nuclear weapons. Nobody is going to nuke anyway, nor will any other countries take action, and if the palestinians keep fighting for nothing the end result is that they will probably just be kicked out pretty soon.
You better hope it is. Because if peace never happens, Israel is going to win and all the palestinians will be kicked out, and the rest of the world isn't going to do anything about it.
I mean, people are already calling it a genocide, so if peace isn't possible, just kicking out all of the palestinians seems like the most likely outcome here. And the more fighting that happens, the more arabs will die for nothing.
Why do you love a country of thugs and robbers who hate others private property and murdered thiusands of innocent British citizens?
If Iran stopped funding Hezbollah then real peace could have been achieved.
You are going to go back a whole 70 years to make your point? Isn't it time to get over it?
All the surrounding governments are at peace with everyone else. Iran could have had the same thing if it wanted. All it had to do what stop funding proxy militant groups.
The US government needing to get over it is their point.
Also the relevant year they're going back to is 1979.
The US government is perfectly able to make peace with countries like Egypt and Jordan. Because those countries aren't funding proxy groups to destabilize the region.
As soon as Iran stops shooting missiles at tankers and stops funding militant groups, peace would be achieved.
As for "freeing" themselves in 1979... please talk to some actual Iranians and ask them how much of their country's resources are actually benefitting them, instead of going to regional terror proxies and into enriching corrupt Mullahs so that their sons and daughters could go live in luxury in the West they so despise. Ask them, too, how "free" they really feel.
The surrounding states, which have been attacked by Iran and use the strait to export their oil, should grow a pair, close their borders with Iran, and use all the weapons they bought over the years from the U.S. and finish off once and for all the "Islamic Republic." It seems that, at last, the Saudis are stepping up to the plate and doing something about the Houthis. This is all because they did not finish the job last time.
Either way, the US and Iran were at peace right up until we decided to pull out of our disarmament treaty with them. And then executed a decapitation strike against them.
They never gave up. The plan was always to lie and get sanction relief from the West, in order to to sell oil and fund Islamist terrorism throughout the region and the world. It isn't only about the nukes. Fundamentally, this is about containment of a dangerous anti-Western ideology. Same thing in Cuba.
Your only defense of the astounding level of evil represented by the occupying regime in Iran is to keep frothing at the mouth about Israel? That shows quite a lot. Try again.
But from the rest of your messages here, it's clear that you despise the US as well, so there are natural ulterior motives to any arguments you make about other countries aligning with or against US interests. When you're hoping for someone to be damaged, then of course you'd try to manipulate them into mistaking enemies for friends and vice versa.
How is it not common sense to develop nukes and study American military weak points and develop defenses against American military if you are not America? Especially if you have oil. Either you live a free life and get bombed by America or you become an American slave if you failed to do your homework. American gets weird whims and tends to start bombing random countries whenever they smell oil or a government that wants to go independent. Its healthier for both America and that country that they be independent and not a vassal state or one kowtowing to random American demands.
I looked up Beirut, the so called neutral peacekeeping force was trying to create a theocratic/Christian military entity in Lebanon, in which case its natural to think they are liars and actually invaders pretending to be peacekeepers. The attack hit marines and military people which are all valid targets. Americans killed the entire leadership of Iran so it doesn't seem there is anything wrong in Iran hitting political agents in the embassy either.
Bombing places of worship is evil, you won't have me arguing that. Which is why I find it strange you are not complaining about Israel bombing various churches and Israeli soldiers desecrating Christian icons or Americans countless bombings and "collateral damages".
TWA 1985 isn't Iran, its a Lebanese terror attack. If you want to say Iran pulled the strings, then great, there are countless excellent reasons to target Americans given the endless barrage of proxy forces and bases they have all over the world.
The Dhahran case against seems to have targeted military personnel only which is perfectly valid given American actions in Iran such as the treasonous coup.
I hate Iran, I don't like Iran at all. Unfortunately the problem is Israel, and the actions of American military make Iran look marginally better than either.
The only thing JCPOA did was funnel billions into their hands so they could continue oppressing their own population within their own borders, and destabilizing the entire region outside of them.
[1] https://www.thetimes.com/world/asia/article/ex-nuclear-chief... [2] https://www.iranintl.com/en/202204245312
You missed the perfectly reasonable 3rd option. Iran could stop shooting missiles at oil tankers, stop funding proxy groups, and make an arrangement for peace.
We both know though, that they are unwilling to do that. Because peace was never their goal. Instead, they wanted to achieve regional hegemony, and funded proxy groups to do that. But whatever, look how well that worked out for them.
Sure, if taking out the regime is the only pathway to stop Iran from continuing on its current path, then the USA is of course going to try that. But if there was an actual path the peace here, where Iran simply stopped its attacks, things could get back to normal fairly quickly.
What's stopping Israel from attacking "random" countries? Perhaps the fact that they're hardly "random", rather they all host proxy groups of the occupying regime in Iran, who have very openly been subverting those countries into bases from which to attack Israel.
Try again.
If you have a problem with proxies, then Iran has the right to shoot down and occupy most of Europe and Australia as they have been American proxies for long and they are supplying their bases and infrastructure for Americans to launch attacks on Iran from. Iran also as far as I am aware has never sprayed chemical poisons on foreign countries farms to kill their food supply. Israel has.
How many of the Iranian attacks in the gulf were not those fired at American bases and soldiers in those countries?
Israel did fire at that hotel in Qatar, but considering that the hotel was hosting the entire terrorist leadership of Hamas at the time, it was far less 'random' than what Iran has done. The very fact that Iran was using cluster munitions on civilian areas (in Israel and elsewhere), which is a complete violation of humanitarian laws and a war crime in itself, should tell you what their targets were.
As for your comment on proxies, it's clear that the regime in Iran does consider things this way, but they could have avoided that by doing a simple thing: not declaring war on the US the moment they were founded.
Where is that?
The first negative interaction between USA and Iran seems to be the illegal American coup and destroying Iran's democracy to put a dictatorial monarchy.
Then Iranians respond, correctly, by taking action against this treasonous state of matters.
>Israel did fire at that hotel in Qatar, but considering that the hotel was hosting the entire terrorist leadership of Hamas at the time, it was far less 'random' than what Iran has done. The very fact that Iran was using cluster munitions on civilian areas (in Israel and elsewhere), which is a complete violation of humanitarian laws and a war crime in itself, should tell you what their targets were.
There are lots of Israelis working in many places, and most are legally IDF members and or involved in various defense and intelligence companies. Almost every Israeli living anywhere in the world is a valid target for missile and drone strikes and assassinations under this logic.
The militant groups obviously. If peace isn't possible of course Israel is going to play to win.
Israel was perfectly able to make peace with Egypt and jordan, for example, and they aren't invading them.
Oh great proving my point. They get to be at peace and get paid money to do so. Looks like a good deal all around. I guess peace is possible with the surrounding countries after all right?
Whatever the government is of Egypt, it seems quite clear that peace is possible. There is no war with Egypt. Egypt is getting paid a bunch of money. Israel's army is not marching on the capital. It seems like they are at peace.
So the point stands that peace is clearly possible, such as the clear peace that we see between Egypt, Jordan, and Israel.
Because the countries are working together quite well right now, there is significant economic benefit to peace, and there is little to gained from controlling wide swaths of empty land, when peace and trade is much more profitable. Occupation is expensive and if its possible to maintain strong economic relationships that is much more mutually beneficial then the nonsense that you propose.