How is ICE doing over there? Besides the two executions.
|
American Politics Discussion Thread
|
(March 2nd, 2026, 11:19)greenline Wrote: The goal is regime change. But it seems like the Iranian resistance is led by morons who jumped the gun rather than waiting for support. Honestly, there is no goal. The TACO regime does not have the brain power to work a plan that far.
Travelling on a mote of dust, suspended in a sunbeam.
(March 2nd, 2026, 22:39)greenline Wrote: They have a bunch of angry middle class people demanding democracy of some kind and the shah's son / grandson on standby. It would probably look like a restoration of the pre revolution government or something more liberalized. So a fascist monarchy, then?
Travelling on a mote of dust, suspended in a sunbeam.
It's come to my attention that the only reason Osborne got the ballot to himself was because the DEM candidate dropped out. It can happen again so NE stays in likely R for now. I don't think Paxton wins primary now so Texas goes to likely R
(March 4th, 2026, 14:43)Brian Shanahan Wrote:(March 2nd, 2026, 22:39)greenline Wrote: They have a bunch of angry middle class people demanding democracy of some kind and the shah's son / grandson on standby. It would probably look like a restoration of the pre revolution government or something more liberalized. I thought progressives would be happy to see a new government in Iran that wouldn't throw women in prison to be raped and tortured for not covering their hair enough, but I guess they have other priorities.
Steve Daines drops out. However, GOP will get handed the win via vote splitting. MT stays in solid R
Yes Donald Trump the paragon of democracy and women will make sure that happens. I mean it might happen. Sometimes the populace rises up and you get what you want. But the number of times an attacker has thought that would happen vs it actually happening the way they want.... I mean do I hope it happens; sure. Do I think its the reason Trump started this. Who knows. I mean if it did it would be a great political win (and yes I think that is why if he actually wants this he cares not actually caring about the people). Or who knows why. Pick a day get a different explanation. Maybe it was an Epstein distraction. Maybe there was secret intel. But who knows why. Which will make it hard to figure out if it has been successful, so maybe that is the plan and just declare victory eventually.
Also, wasn't one of Trump's major political views that he wouldn't do this kind of crap? Should we do this to all despotic countries? Is it our job? At what point can someone do it to us? I mean I sympathize with the people. But we just have a REALLY REALLY REALLY bad track record of effective regime change. I remember discussing this a long time back and no one argued with "we suck at it". And that is with boots on the ground. Its not like there was a broad international consensus this needed to be done, let alone done now. Could have waited for the leader to die and see what came of that first at the very least. Aside from the probabilities of something good happening, soft political factors, and morality I do want to point out a flaw if this goes on too long. If the regime change results in something vaguely not super anti western (which as I'm counting full on civil war in this option which if they keep going after leadership, which I count as more likely than a democratic paradise) that doesn't export missiles everywhere MAYBE we can come out ahead in terms of material. The problem is a lot of the material we are using up in this war is exactly the kind of material you would want as a deterrent against a future war with China. Precision missiles and interceptors. And mind you our soft power hasn't been doing great this presidency either. 
The attack on Iran isn't meant to be separate from the goal of containing China. Iran provides significant quantities of oil to China and has been purchasing their drones and missile technology in turn. Venezuela was also an oil supplier to China.
The attack as it is has been doing the maximal possible damage to the Iranian government without involving any boots on the ground. Apart from promoting a Kurdish uprising, the actual revolution has to come from the Iranian protestors who have already made it clear they're pushing for a more liberal democracy than that they've already got (Iran would have been a much better place for W's sentimental plans of spreading democracy given that it has a much longer and robust history of holding elections and a much more western-sympathetic populace). If Trump goes forward with boots on the ground to make that happen I and many other voters will find themselves disappointed. If the airstrikes fail to achieve that goal on their own it is possible to walk away and consider it a victory because Iran was still demolished as a regional power. For Trump's motivation, like many of his generation, he grew up seeing footages of Americans from the embassy held captive in Tehran. Few old men are predisposed to like Iran in any capacity, so reconciliation was off the table from the start. And after Israel demolished Hezbollah it stopped making sense from a realpolitik perspective as well. Strong eat, weak meat...
Good thing Russia isn't a land neighbor to China, they might still be able to get oil (yes I realize limited pipeline capacity). And its not like we have any sanctions on anyone else selling them oil.
If you create an Iranian government that hates us even more is that a loss? Or one that bides its time. Is a civil war with a humanitarian crisis a loss? I'm sure none of our actions have ever had long term consequences in a region. And again, they were doing a pretty good job of taking themselves down, so why now? Why not wait and see what happens? I'll pose you a challenge. Give me the official fully defined why we are in the war and the concrete goals we hope to achieve. I won't even ask the hard one of proving popular support for the action or ask you to answer some of the questions from my last post. Hm maybe the answer to the motivation question could be instead domestic politics. Maybe he was looking for a quick win that would take a lot of media coverage, where he could easily define what a win was later.
I'm not sure it would be possible to create an Iranian government more opposed to the US.
A civil war is seen as a less bad option than letting Iran continue to run proxy operations like the Houthi attacks on Red Sea shipping and funding Hezbollah across the region, as well as buying and manufacturing drones. There are concrete goals of regime change, and obliterating the ability of Iran to run further proxy operations and threaten shipping in the region. One is already being achieved as we speak. The other may fail. A fascinating aspect of the conflict I only just learned about is how insurance factors into it all. Per this article: the Houthi attacks on shipping had already heavily strained insurance available to cover losses in case of conflict rather than natural disasters. At the start of the operation Iran declared the Straits of Hormuz as closed (even though their ability to enforce this is degrading precipitously by the hour) - yet shipping through the straits immediately halted. This was because insurance is handled by a group of private entities in London that were unable to provide any further coverage for shipping lost due to military attacks. This is why gas prices are climbing, and why it probably won't be a quick domestic win for Trump like you suggest was planned. Trump is trying to respond to this by having the US government replace Lloyd of London for providing insurance to shipping, which may restart it in a week or so if things go well. |
