Public sentiment is highly negative regarding potential military conflicts between the US and Iran, with a prominent skepticism towards US interventions, particularly in support of Israel. Many commenters express concerns about the potential for escalating violence and emphasize the need for diplomatic solutions rather than military actions. The discussions often reflect historical frustrations, perceived hypocrisy concerning nuclear weapons policies, and a strong advocacy for peace.

United States

Iran

Israel

I mean this is nothing new for those who have spent time in the Middle East. Every week military forces sweep the strait and find mines among other things. The threat has always been there.

Expert_Champion_9966

Jesus Christ Iran, don’t. I can’t imagine anything dumber to do, as a course of action. Please don’t.

ShepardCommander001

I vote we do not get into yet another war.

  
Israel started it. Israel can finish it. I do not like either country.

whwt

It would be so stupid of them to give America an excuse to bomb them. Only thing I can think is they want to back down but be able to claim some form of victory to their people like hitting an American ship. I doubt we would be very open to peace talks if that happened though.

harambe_did911

Wild . Also saw some public reporting of all the ships in Bahrain being sent underway no official acknowledgment that I can see though. ( if you are in Bahrain do not confirm if accurate )

Be safe everyone pay attention to announcements .

Thanks for the article salty🤙

newnoadeptness

Mal-De-Terre

I really don’t want to be right. 

Saber rattling is one thing, but our hyper agressive statements this morning are likely doing more harm than good.

Trick-Set-1165

Well, if this becomes an official declaration of war, at least the submarines in the area will get a war patrol pin for the first time since WW2

chromerhomer

![gif](giphy|O9HeC49RBpLpUj0ein)

Yeah, when I was back in high school in 1988!

Not kidding, you young’uns Google Operation Praying Mantis, mine strike on the Sammy B, etc.

The Tripoli and Princeton took mine hits a few years later in the Gulf, too, in 1991.

Shits been stirring in the Gulf for many, many decades.

You could see Silkworm missile batteries in the Straits when you passed by on the Iranian side.

Fun stuff, make sure you make a TikTok about frying an egg on the deck edge of the ship for cred while you’re there.

Helmett-13

By all accounts the Iranian military has taken devastating losses to equipment and infrastructure since Israel started its attacks, and they are seemingly unable to respond to Israel's ongoing attacks in any meaningful way.  They would be extremely stupid to fuck with us with everything else they have going on right now.

Major__Departure

Born too late for war in the Middle East.
Born too early for war in the Middle East.
Born just in time for war in the Middle East.

Sergeant_Standby

Never understood why we've been so involved with Israel and their affairs. This has escalated from a proxy war to what could become WW3 should other countries get involved.

FocusLeather

It would be a really really bad idea to do that

bilkel

F22 start your engines you might graduate from ballon’s to something more meaty

jasperbluethunder

MassiveBoner911_3

Could they possibly pull troops out or does that rarely happen?

No-Finish364

I would have thought the tankers were to be an assist for air bridge to Israel.

SnooHedgehogs8765

I know my fellow CIWS guys out there will handle business. Iran is being dismembered right now. Iran fires missiles, Israel tracks them and then destroys the launchers. 

Uncle_Donnie

Okay? Iran is depleted. The threat is gone. They can make threats all day. 

FERVENT_FEVER

Well, let's define a few words here, and I think in the definition of those words you'll realize something interesting...

"Gets into" - what does it mean to get into a war? Contribute to it? Send troops, or just technology and weapons? What about just planes/drones? What about just specialists/communications ops? Wouldn't it be possible for any number of countries to use Iran as an excuse to test out some military technology?

"Fight it alone" - well, is it possible for the US to fight in somebody else's war alone? Israel is fighting the war, so by definition we're already not alone - us not joining means they're fighting alone. Us joining means we're fighting with an ally. 

"occupy Iran" - Why does anybody need to occupy Iran? That's not Israel's goal - their goal is to hamstring Iran to prevent Iran from assisting Palestine/Jordan/Egypt/Syria in attacking Israel in the short term future. They don't need to occupy Iran, just wreck a bunch of Iran's military bases, nuclear sites, take out key people, cause internal chaos, and buy another few years as Iran deals with that. 

So in short - nobody actually needs to occupy Iran, it by default wouldn't be fought alone, and it's another opportunity to test long range weapons and new technology under the cover of the American military industrial complex.

effyochicken

[deleted]

&gt;If the United States joins the war formerly by sending boots on the ground

It boggles my mind that people are even talking about this.  It's deeply unserious.  Nobody is invading Iran. It's not being considered *at all.*  Not by Israel, not by America, not by anybody.

It's something between general ignorance and a strawman even to discuss it.

Israel can probably accomplish everything it wants to from the air.  It would like American help, might already be getting some and might get even more, but that's really as far as it goes.

&gt;They underestimate the Iranians.

Everything we've seen since 10/7 suggests we vastly overestimated the Iranians and have for some time.

&gt;The US Government has decided that peace through negotiations are over

That isn't what's happened at all.  Trump himself has specifically talked about resuming negotiations, implicitly at a time of maximum advantage - incidentally, Iran is literally begging him to stop Israel through third parties.  Israel isn't interested because they're winning and stopping while you're winning is generally suboptimal.

&gt;Or they decimate Israel

Iran has pretty emphatically proven they can't do that.  Right now Israel has air supremacy *over Tehran*.  Iran appears to be running out of missiles, places from which to shoot missiles, and capacity to produce more missiles.

Unless you think Iran is going to blaze a trail across Iraq or Syria - both countries that have given Israel access to their airspace and who would not take kindly to a ground army traversing their territory - to get to Israel, Iran is in a pretty tight bind.

&gt;get the bomb

Yeah that's looking pretty fuckin unlikely at this point.  Israel wrecked a bunch of their nuclear infrastructure and I wouldn't at all be surprised if we used this opportunity to drop a handful of MOABs to put the last nail in the coffin.  If Iran "gets the bomb," it's because they already had it.

&gt;God help us.

You need to stop paying attention to this.  You're OD'ing on catastrophism and you need to reorient in the real world.

Grunt08

Israeli here. The most likely form of the US getting involved in the Israel-Iran war is not by sending boots on the ground. The only thing Israel cannot do and needs the USA's help with is with bunker buster munitions and B-2 bombers which only the US has. These are needed to bomb one specific site. The help we need is 1-2 bombs in a single place in a single flyover. Anything else we can do on our own.

magnus_equanimus

If the US gets into the war, it probably will just be using bunker busters at nuclear facilities and/or defending missiles coming into Israel.

iryanct7

Israel will be on our side so we wouldn’t be “alone.”

We’d also have a lot of “soft support” from the KSA, Kuwait, Jordan, and Iraq. 

But most importantly there’s no need to have US troops on the ground because Israel is decimating their leadership and military capabilities to the point that it’s not even remotely worth invading.

Icy-Exits

You underestimate Europe's interests in the region. The US is not by any means the only country supporting Israel with a vested interest in their continuation. England, France, and Germany are all very much backers of Israel militarily speaking, whatever their public stance on the Palestinian issue is. 

While I don't disagree it would be a hard sell to pull any of these countries into another full scale war in the Middle East, they would likely aid US/Israeli efforts in various ways without committing to boots on the ground (unless Iran were to attack a NATO country directly, then they would have little choice in the matter). 

Also you seem to be under the impression that Americans would need a lot of help in order to win a war with Iran, which isn't really the case unless Iran were able to pull China and Russia to help them which is unlikely. Iran may be a powerful force in the region but it does not hold a candle to the US military en force. The hardest part of going to war with Iran wouldn't be the fighting it would be regime change and ensuring stability in the aftermath once troops pull out. This has been the biggest struggle with all wars in the middle east and why the US &amp; allies are weary of getting involved in another one.

mouskete3r

There are ways for the United States to "get into" this war that don't involve a ground invasion. I agree that the United States has very little to gain from putting nuts on the ground, and much to lose. But the US could get involved in other ways—say, if it decides it wants to really end the Iranian nuclear program, by sending a B2 bomber to Fordow.

Thumatingra

Iran has warned uk and France along with the US not to intercept missiles. If Iran  attacks anybody their bases uk and France will reluctantly join in.

If the bases aren't touched I can't see these countries going america on the ground at least.

Rossco1874

More like once the US is in the mix, nobody else's contributions are treated with respect. Get over yourselves.

edited for typo

drcasualnihilist

There’s no reason for the US to send troops to Iran. It’ll only take 3-5 bombs from B2 bombers to finish Iran’s nuclear program. If we really wanted to take out the regime, we could still do that from the air and cyberspace and leave the rest to the Iranians.

Individual-Stage-620

For the people saying we will just bomb
Then while likely true if wenlearned anything from our roughly 60years of fighting in the Middle East it’s that when you bomb a country esojoilly civilian areas you kill families and cause terror. And as we have seen time and time again come is 10 years from now the people who were terrorized from this war and lost family will organize and seek to terrorize others. And then this will start another war and that war will create more terrorists thus fueling the war after that and so on.
The Middle East is just a messed up place like that. 

Long story short I think we should cut our losses because when people see an American bomb killing their families it compelled them to want to bring a similar feeling to American families (hence 9/11 and other terrorist  attacks. And largely due to our last two presidents. (Trump and Biden ) and most of all the current one (Trump 2.0) the US  far weaker then it was during the war on terror and even that war still turned out mixed for us 

sirblobfish1

It needs not cone to this.

Look how easily Syria fell and new leadership took over when there was proper engagement.

The plan will be the same here.  Destroy the nuclear program, kill the political and military leadership, install a friendly government who is progressive.

You don’t need a huge foreign military.  You need to turn the one there against the supreme leader and support a new leader.

Co-flyer

If losing trillions upon trillions of dollars and countless lives in a new Iran war is what the US wants, then go ahead. It will surely be the last dance, last forever war it will face, and by the time it's over, with the US distracted, China will have taken the lead to become the worlds new superpower. And Iran takes the title and legacy of super power killer.

EnvironmentalIron881

If? What are you talking about, IF?


America WILL join in the war coz Israel (at least in that part of the world) tells America what to do. There's absolutely no democracy in the US so the American people can't stop it either. The American state has essentially been captured by a foreign power. Absolute embarrassment.

Anxious-Start-4272

I do not think Usa and Israel will be able to pin down Iran like it oinned down the other middle east, due to China, Russia and other nations supplying Iran military with resources and information about enemy.

Embarrassed-Lie9846

nobody really helped last time either. i am staunchly anti-war in the middle east but i couldnt care any less what europe has to say about it.

Valuable_Arm_9700

/u/Swimreadmed (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.

All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/1lb914l/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_attacking_iran_is_the/), in /r/DeltaLog.

Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.

^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)

DeltaBot

Iran is a nation full of 90 million people who you are basically saying should assimilate to US rule or be genocided. It might be ideal if the US is planning on forceful world domination but imperialism like this has proven to never work and will only create hatred in the hearts of all those people towards the west meddling in their lives. This view is just inherently wrong based on moral grounds and honestly only makes sense if you see these people as subhuman. From this same perspective it makes sense for Iran to hurry up that nuclear deterrent to save itself or to attempt takeover of Israel in order to eliminate potential threats. None of which are a good resolution to this conflict

CollectionHeavy9281

Hmmm, this reads like rage bait but I’ll engage for the fun of it.

I think your idea of the US’s global power is quite misguided. The use of a tactical nuke, as you’ve mentioned in some of your replies, would be a horrendous miscalculation. 

The US military is by almost every metric- the most dominant force wielded by any group of humans ever. The problem is, the US doesn’t solely wield this power; the US is hugely bolstered by it’s relationships with other countries (allowing military bases in their nations, trading, enforcement of external foreign policy).

The large majority of the US’s allies, would no longer be US allies in the event of a preemptive nuclear strike. The opposite would happen- the world would see the US as tyrannical, and they would be correct.

Even in a US vs the World scenario, I believe the US would still actually have a chance in a vacuum, but unfortunately we don’t live in a vacuum. The US populace would bleed out America from the inside. We can look at how the world reacted to Israel’s operation in Gaza and easily deduce that a nuclear strike against another sovereign nation would be, in almost all cases, idiotic. 

I’m not sure how serious you’re being in your replies or your post. With all due respect, it reads as completely ignorant and naive. I’d recommend for you to focus less on military power on paper, but rather, consider whether the world as a whole truly likes US policy, or whether they simply tolerate it.

Hexsisboii

You frame your post like the world is a chessboard and the US can casually knock over pieces like Iran, Pakistan, and eventually parts of Russia, India, and China. But this isn’t chess. It’s fucking Jenga. Iran isn’t just another Middle Eastern country that can be bombed into submission. It’s a fortress built by nature, surrounded by mountains, deserts, and chokepoints that make any conventional invasion a logistical nightmare. Every invading force in history has struggled to hold it, and with modern terrain analysis and satellite intel, it’s even clearer now: no amount of airstrikes or special ops will overcome the sheer defensive advantages of the land itself. You are advocating for a military operation against a state that is not only dug in and armed to the teeth but one that has spent the last four decades preparing for this exact scenario.

What’s worse is your belief that because people hate the Iranian regime, they’ll let the US or Israel roll in without resistance. That’s naive. Iranians may despise their government, but they despise foreign invaders more. There is a deeply rooted national identity, and you would instantly unite reformists, hardliners, apolitical citizens, and even exiles in a massive, national, asymmetric response. You wouldn’t be liberating a people, you’d be triggering a deeply emotional, historical, and spiritual war of resistance. This wouldn’t be like Iraq or Afghanistan. It would be asymmetric warfare at a scale no American military planner has ever dealt with, drone swarms, cyberattacks, guerrilla ambushes in urban environments, coordinated proxy wars across the region, martyrdom missions, and mass mobilization across a population of 90 million. And that’s without mentioning the regional fallout. Hezbollah, the Houthis, Shia militias in Iraq, cells in Syria, Bahrain, possibly even Afghanistan, all of them would be unleashed, with Iranian intelligence and weapons behind them.

Your “water” argument is so absurd it borders on parody. Do you actually believe that the US could launch operations over the Volga, the Himalayas, the Yangtze, or Pearl River and face no consequences? That China, India, or Russia would just sit back and allow foreign drones or missiles to threaten their heartlands? These are nuclear powers. Any attempt to target their waterways from a “springboard” in Iran wouldn’t just be escalation, it would be suicide. You’re treating nuclear deterrence like it’s optional, as if the most heavily defended nations in the world will roll over and hand over control of their rivers. This isn’t just bad strategy. It’s insane.

Even if you somehow succeeded in occupying Iran, which you wouldn’t, you’d gain nothing. You wouldn’t pacify the population. You’d trigger a generational wave of resistance, attacks, and revenge. Iran is a civilization, not just a country, and it has a long memory. Occupying it won’t bring control. It will bring chaos that spreads through the region and lasts decades. You talk about avoiding the “moral mistakes” of Iraq and Afghanistan, but you haven’t learned anything from them. You’ve just stripped away the pretense and kept the arrogance. What you’re proposing isn’t realism. It’s ideological imperialism fueled by ignorance, and it would bring about exactly what you claim to be preventing: collapse, war, and the end of US global credibility. There is no victory in your vision, only fire, and you’re too intoxicated by power fantasies to see that you’re the one holding the match.

Unless you want another Vietnam on your hands, stay the fuck out of Iran.

Interesting-Sail1414

It would be an incorrect decision for “the West” but beneficial to Israel (which is usually how it goes). In the US, inner divisions might escalate past a boiling point and political destabilization would follow civil instability. 

The war in Vietnam was widely unpopular when it was shown on TV, sparking protests, so they took it off TV… the war in Iraq was only popular at first because 9/11 was widely shown on TV..  even though of course Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Now more than ever, the conflict in Gaza is as unpopular as it gets for Americans, especially the youth, across the left and right, manly because of widespread independent information on social media. Young Americans do not seem to be fans of Israel, and are very active in protesting the atrocities committed by Israel and calling out how much of our US tax dollars goes them and how many of our politicians may be blackmailed them.

And Israel is our main reason for not being friendly with Iran..

So if we start bombing Iran, a fully developed nation, and have to send American troops to fight and die in Iran, because of their beef with Israel, there will be unity across social media in detesting the US actions and it will boil into the streets making the pro-Palestine protests look like sewing circles. 

Americans do not want to see billions of our tax dollars going to fund a new war on behalf of a country that many people see as evil. This one would probably be the last straw.

SpeaktheTalk

What exactly would “the defeat of Iran” look like?

What do you do with all the Iranians? The US can’t even keep the downtown of its own second biggest metro under control at the moment, what chance does it have with all of Iran and the rest of the Middle East? You’re just going to kill them all? And then what?

CBRChimpy

What an ignorant and poorly thought out idea.

You actually want to encourage war with Russia and China? Why? The US should absolutely not do that.

This is the very reason why we would be better off destroying Israel than Iran.

Israel is behind every war we have ever had in the Middle East. They take billions of dollars from us as well as our military supplies all while manipulating and interfering with our government through Al sorts of means including pedo file sex black mail rings (Epstein Island) and AIPAC the only foreign lobbying group allowed to not have to register as a foreign lobby.

Meanwhile, they stole nuclear weapons from the US (Apollo Affair) following in the footsteps of steps of “Rekesh” where they stole weapons from WW2 to send to their Zionist endeavors in British Palestine where they carried out terrorist attacks like the King David Hotel Bombing and Operation Cast Thy Bread. 

They have been trying to involve Us military in the Middle East for ever by attacking US citizens and blaming it on others Lavon Affair (bomb use citizens in Egypt and blame it on the Muslim brotherhood), FLLF Bombings (a series of car bombings in Lebanon that targeted the US ambassador there), the attack on the USS Liberty (which they tried to say was Egypt)…. And lots of evidence they were behind 9/11 (but that’s way to deep to get into here)

Advanced_Explorer980

Don’t say ‘the West’ when you really mean the US. You love bombing countries and turning your mess into the world's mess.  

Also, f*ck your take—go bomb Alabama or something and leave the rest of the world alone

LadySwire

Way off. If America gets involved in another quagmire it won't work in our favor. Since the end of world war two our policing of other countries and intervention has backfired 100% of the time. Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan all mistakes. Leave the fighters to their own idiocy, our taking a side and arming that side is a waste of resources and life and won't work in our favor. 

MechanicHead3340

Iran is the same size as the Iberian Peninsula, France, Germany combined, alongside a 1/2 of the county being mountain ranges, and the other 1/2 being a fucking desert (dasht lut). This is nearly twice as large at the total amount of territory the US invaded and four-five times as large as what we occupied after WWII and unlike then, we aren’t having the Soviets, British, Yugoslavians, and French on our sides. We will be totally alone. It took 3 Million US Troops to Invade and liberate Europe and 1.5 Million US soldiers to occupy Germany and Austria. By that alone, it will take easily over several Million more to occupy Iran (we currently have 1.32 Million) so hello Draft. 

And on top of that, on terrain that is on every metric, worse than what we faced in Europe, with exception of maybe the Balkans. And unlike the Germans, who had millions of their soldiers already dead in the Soviet Invasions by the time of D-day or the US invasion of Italy, Irans population is intact. 

Forget Iraq and Afghanistan, you’re dealing with a situation that is objectively worse than invading Europe in WWII. Please explain to me how the cost is not going to be absolutely fucking batshit crazy as far as casualties and military spending would go. 

edit - Balkans not Baltics

Front-Cancel5705

The Axis of resistance collapsed. Assad is gone, Hamas will never be allowed to recover, Hezbollah ended yup being totally toothless, and Iran essentially threw their allies to the wolves once they figured out there was nothing they could do to protect them. Combine that with Iran's internal economic and political problems and they are not a major concern now. We should ignore them, and focus on Ukraine and Taiwan.

Thoth_the_5th_of_Tho

"Russia, which was decimated in Ukraine" that only, shows the magnitude of delusion and naiveness in your perception of geopolitical matters. 

Do you think that the three majorly threatened states in your scenario (that two of them happen to be the largest armies and the other have the largest nuclear arsenal), will sit and watch the US taking control of Iran? How ignorant!... 

This would be exactly the excuse that BRICS needs to engage without holding back. This would be the end of the US. Good luck with that and good luck to the whole planet!...

Tasosu

Are you arguing for a prolonged military occupation of Iran by the US? Because otherwise I don’t get the references to a springboard. 

Also, you understand such an attack would be grossly illegal right? This seems like the kind of act that would ultimately degrade the last several decades of soft power the US has been building both regionally and globally.

FerdinandTheGiant

“It seems the attack on Iran is finally imminent, this is great news for America.”

False premise. War with Iran is not “great news” — it’s a geopolitical powder keg. Iran is not Iraq or Afghanistan; it has a strong military, strategic alliances, and a population of 88 million. War would not end quickly, nor cleanly, and would almost certainly embroil the U.S. in a multi-front, asymmetric quagmire.

“The long project in the Middle East is coming to fruition, with most independent states being decimated… Israel and the Gulf States remaining.”

If the goal is to reduce the Middle East to proxy-run husks, then the last 20 years were a colossal failure. Iraq is unstable, Afghanistan was handed back to the Taliban, Syria remains fragmented, and Iran — until this week — was growing stronger. The idea that the U.S. has been successfully shaping a pro-American Middle East is a delusion. What remains is resentful, unstable, volatile, and in many cases, more aligned with China or Russia than with Washington.

“The defeat of Iran would give the US immense power… a springboard to attack Russia and China.”

Iran isn’t a stepping stone to Eurasian conquest — it’s a trap. The terrain is mountainous and nearly ungovernable. The culture is fiercely nationalist, not just Islamic. Any U.S. occupation would face decades of insurgency, at levels that make Iraq and Afghanistan look manageable.

As for springboarding into Russia or China — that’s fantasy. Iran does not connect cleanly to critical Chinese or Russian infrastructure, and attempting to use it as a base for such operations would provoke nuclear escalation thresholds.

“This also makes Israel uncontestable… Turkey and Egypt should be disposed of.”

Turkey is a NATO member. Egypt receives U.S. military aid. Any move to “dispose” of them would cause NATO to fracture and ignite global condemnation — not to mention massive regional war. Israel’s position isn’t strengthened by surrounding chaos; it’s weakened by it, because it must now defend every inch of its border against rocket fire, cyberwarfare, and proxy insurgents.

“No more moralization. No democracy building. Just decimation and control.”

What you’re describing is imperialism without end, which is both logistically unsustainable and strategically short-sighted. Power that rests only on military force collapses the moment attention or resources are diverted. Ask the British Empire. Or the Soviets. Or Rome.

“The final and most important point is the water aspect… Iran and Pakistan allow a springboard into underbellies of India, China, Russia.”

Control of the Himalayan Plateau, Yangtze headwaters, and Volga River is not accomplished through force projection from Tehran. These are fortified national red zones of three nuclear-armed states. The idea that the U.S. could march north and seize water sources from inside China or Russia is not a strategic plan — it’s a geopolitical hallucination.

“The costs of short-term war are offset by long-term benefits…”

History doesn’t support this. Iraq cost over $2 trillion, thousands of lives, and delivered no clear benefit. Afghanistan collapsed the moment U.S. troops left. Meanwhile, China rose, BRICS strengthened, and the U.S. faces internal political division and debt levels approaching unsustainability.

War drains empires more than it strengthens them. Especially when the enemy is decentralized, spread out, and has global partners.

TLDR: Why Your Argument Fails
	1.	Strategic Overestimation: You assume a level of U.S. dominance that no longer exists in a multipolar world.
	2.	Logistical Ignorance: You disregard terrain, population resistance, and long-term costs of occupation.
	3.	Geopolitical Naïveté: You underestimate the response of China, Russia, Turkey, Pakistan — all nuclear or near-nuclear states.
	4.	Historical Amnesia: You forget the consequences of the last 20 years of war: trillions lost, credibility eroded, enemies strengthened.
	5.	Internal Decay: You assume the U.S. has infinite political will and economic strength. It doesn’t. Wars like this accelerate imperial decline, not prevent it.

griffibo

It seems the attack on Iran is finally imminent, this is great news for America *(how...?)*.

The long project in the Middle East is coming to final fruition *(which is...what?)*, with most independent states being decimated *(what...?)*, and the only standing nations being Israel and at a lower tier the Gulf countries *(...no)*, all dependent on the US for existence *(...definitely no, where are you getting this?)*.

The defeat of Iran would give the US immense power in the region *(how...?)*, a springboard from which to attack both Russia *(no, definitely not)* and China *(absolutely not, and it would take too long to explain why it's impractical other than to point at a map)*, control over the Gulf areas *(excepting the other Gulf states which would take umbrage with this arrangement and respond in ways you can't shoot at)* which would ultimately allow somewhere downstream to take out Pakistan *(that's not a goal, why is this a goal?!?)* and possibly any Gulf leader who wants to break out of US hegemony *(how? And when did we skip ahead to the presumption that a regional US hegemony would be necessary or possible?)*.

This also makes Israel uncontestable in the region *(how...look at the map?)*, other than for maybe Turkey and Egypt, both dependent on the US, though ultimately should probably be disposed of and put under Israeli admin *(...is this about Iran, or Israel...or...I'm so confused, what? And, holy hell, no, where are you getting any of this 'should be disposed of' shit? Why, what does this have to do with Iran?)*.

We must not repeat the mistakes of moralization we did in Iraq and Afghanistan *(by...doing the same thing but bigger and dumber?)*, no government coalitions *(impossible to do this w/o because of the terrain and relationships w/ its neighbors)*, democracy or nation building *(nation and infrastructure already present, irrelevant)*, these countries will be under direct administration of the US or its proxies *(this would never be allowed to happen, and would trigger immediate open and redoubled clandestine responses by Russia, China, Turkey, Pakistan &amp; possibly SA with an astronomical bill attached and they would succeed)* or their critical infrastructure will be decimated *(which would fall on us to rebuild in an environment of active sabotage by the people in Iran, as well as bankrupt us when international economies respond by choking the US)*.

The final and most important point is the water aspect *(okay...it's bordered by huge mountain ranges and numerous springs and streams exist, nonetheless it's one of the hottest places on Earth so I'm curious where this is going)*, the locations of Iran and Pakistan allow for a springboard into the underbellies of India, China and Russia, *(...what...?)* and targeting major waterways *(there's a few in between, why bother?)*, the Himalayan Plateau feeds a huge swaths of Northern India, the Yangtse and Pearl rivers, plus, going North from Iran *(easier said than done)*, the targeting of the Volga means Russia, which was decimated in Ukraine is under our thumb (...this immediately went off the deep end...into a Nestle mindset...and i can't begin to unpack why this would not be allowed to happen)*.

The costs of short term war *(short-term, are you serious?)* are easily offset by the incredible long term benefits *(which are...?)*.. eliminating any form of panIslamism that isn't under Gulf(US) control *(when the hell did panislamism or whatever enter the chat, and why do you think so many Iranians are pissed at the post-pehlavi fallout? Most of them didn’t want the theocratic BS, and outside interference helped make it happen)*, and the permanent power held over China's and Russia's waterways *(I don't know which map you looked at, but none of that would be permanent, nor practical, nor okay)*.

That's it, CMV, you'll have to show how the cost may be higher than the gains, or that maybe the US can't win this confrontation, if we aren't shackled *(weird choice of words)* by moralistic/ethical constraints *(how about...it's wrong, and would invite nothing but more problems for the US, up to and including being dismantled a piece at a time over the course of a few decades because it's decidedly become a hyperaggressive superpower?)*.

dawnenome

First, Israel has interests in defeating Iran.  The United States does not. The status quo is prefect acceptable to the US, since the only real interest is oil.  Attacking Iran would hugely disrupt that, sending oil prices spring and probably cratering the US economy.   

Second, what you’re describing is occupying Iran, which is a far larger country than Afghanistan and Iraq put together.   It would be an outright catastrophe.   There is zero chance the United States has the capability to pull that off


Also, we don’t need Iran to attack China, Since Taiwan, Korea and Japan are all allies, and why would we want to attack China?  That’s insanity. As for Russia, we are part of NATO with a very long border with Russia should the US need a staging ground.   Iran doesn’t border either directly.

cairnrock1

I thought the reason you guys wanted Trump elected was to avoid wars. Not start them. .

weedywet

You say that it will eliminate any form of panIslamism. But it would inevitably mean further support of the Islamist regime in Syria to put pressure on western Iraq and the Islamists in Yemen to put pressure on the Houthis.

It makes me wonder if it will create Bin Ladenite-like groups on the Shi'ite side that could attack the US or its nerve endings. The crux for them will be the funding. Intelligence is unnecessary because there's so many open targets.

This possibility could be a reason to further crackdown on immigration into the US. They could send in dummy groups as bait to be captured intentionally to cause internal conflict. This could escalate the war with cartels. This means a ground war on our southern border with head chopper cartels while supporting head chopper terrorist groups abroad.

Combine these with our already crippling debt problems.

It would be relatively easily to fund and support groups in many locations across the globe that would distribute military resources elsewhere and bog the US down into quagmires. Iran would be very smart to fund these kinds of endeavors. They could play the long game and bankrupt the US, as was Bin Laden's goal.

Photon6626

&gt; you'll have to show how the cost may be higher than the gains

You can take a pretty good look at Iran's terrain and military capabilities and get a pretty good idea what an invasion would look like: a complete disaster for any invading Army. US already struggled with Afghanistan and struggles to do anything significant against the Houthis. What makes you think that they'll fare well against a country with an Military Industrial Complex on it's own?

In addition, Iran's primary strategic action in case of a war by West, has been to block/mine the Persian Gulf and to strike at every single oil facility in the Middle East, which they are largely capable of. They'd only need to block the Gulf and strike at enough facilities to completely and utterly cripple global oil supply and almost certainly crash the global economy, including Israel's, who depends on oil shipments from Azerbaijan.

Thirdly, consider the fact that no one is lying when they say Iran is simply weeks away from developing ICBMs: Nuclear Weapons are not too complicated machines, Pakistan built them easily themselves when they were greatly impoverished. In case of a full on US invasion, Iran can easily develop nuclear weapons within a couple of weeks, so unless US immediately flattens all of Iran (very unlikely to happen) then the situation will immediately escalate to full on nuclear war between Iran and Israel.

Draghalys

You want to attack Iran, and rule over Iran, in order to attack Russia, China, and Pakistan. Why not just declare war on the entire world while you're at it?

There is a much greater need for support within the country. Diverting resources to attacking another country, for the purpose of subsequent attacks against other countries... 


... the US seems to be the real threat here, with this scenario.

WippitGuud

If you're asking yourself is this person last post  more or less a vieled argument to doing a genocide via nuke in Muslim majority countries to destroy islam you'd be right probably not much point arguing with them. It either bait or their a nut.

Foxhound97_

Whenever I see the comment 'Iran has a right to defend itself' I find it incredibly funny. Not because of the soverign protections that all countries share, but the fact that people truly don't understand war, conflict, and geopolitics. Israel attacked Iran not because of religious hatred, colonization, or anything else related. They did because of Iran's nuclear program, because of the fall with the Iran Nuclear Deal and the United States caused by current sitting President Trump. Israel had to act becuase Iran is under an islamic radical regime and if they get their hands on a nuclear weapon it would change the entire atmosphere in the Middle East. And terrorists + nukes aren't a good combination

SeaDeep117

I don't believe the US can win a conflict with the Chinese that easily. Russia, probably, but given that the current administration seems extremely reluctant to take any direct action against Russia, that seems unlikely to occur. 

Can you demonstrate why, if we're ignoring moral/ethical restraints (which we shouldn't do, but just for the sake of argument), you believe a fight against China would be successful? I'm not suggesting the PLA is superior necessarily but I don't think the American public would stomach a war against China for as long as it would take and especially with the number of casualties they'd be likely to suffer.

tbcwpg

 Fuelled by Israel and the United States, western media has shown a negative bias towards middle eastern countries in general, and Iran specifically, for the last couple of decades.  The country has been labelled as fanatical, corrupt and although a singular, relatively insular country in it’s politics, we are supposed to see Iran as a global threat and be fearful of the fact that it is developing nuclear missiles.  Without any evidence, we are led to believe by the press that Iran is developing nuclear weapons.  On the other hand, Israel, who has nuclear weapons, is never questioned.  The fact that Israel has nuclear missiles is never mentioned or even questioned from within the Western Press.

 This means that the Western Press can easily go along with Netanyahu’s distorted monologues, when he reframes the attack on a country that has posed no threat to Israel at all, just as when Israel bombed Syria, and Lebanon, These attacks are self-justified as a pre-emptive strike, with no evidence.  According to Peter Jenning in an editorial in the Australian, it is in Australia’s interest that Netanyahu succeeds.  Netanyahu wants, not only to destroy Iran’s unsubstantiated nuclear missile program, but he has now stated that Israel wants a total regime change in Iran.  It seems that this was also a deliberate ploy to stop talks between Iran and America about Iran’s nuclear industry, to which Iran had previously agreed, causing America to change the goal posts.  Iranian government states that Iran’s nuclear Industry would take a few years to destroy. Iranian journalists view rumours of regime change coming from Netanyahu as yet another lie and political ploy

Western media has long practiced what is called Israeli exceptionalism, although Iran has specific policies around not developing nuclear weapons, Israel is allowed to use nuclear weapons as a deterrent and is not questioned about it. As the war on Gaza continues and 100’s of starving Gazans are injured and killed whilst trying to get American food aid, it doesn’t seem like we can expect any kind of truth from the Western Media any time soon.  Especially while targets the communication infrastructure in Gaza, cutting off the internet, leaving aid companies isolated in Gaza unable to communicate. 

 

Flimsy-Tomorrow-2933

Good for israel maybe, but for the US? We benefit nothing from the region since Israel's wars are piling up and the US is funding them all. 

Meanwhile, China and to a lesser extent, Russia, can just sit back and watch as the US pours billions down the drain on their 77 year passion project while they expand their GDP.

There's a reason Trump is trying to stop them from attacking, but as with past presidents, Neytanyahu knows the US will find their war plans no matter what.

Videogamesarereel

After occupying Afghanistan for 20 years, they were driven out by a group of guerrillas armed with AK-47s and wearing flip-flops, yet they still harbour delusions of occupying Iran and even confronting China and Russia.

SnooStories8432

Are you guys mentally well? Why would this be a good thing

Virgo9721

You mean conduct an invasion for those losers who can't even get to Iraq to help their "closest ally?" **Twice**????

Or in Afghanistan, the *original* "War Against Terrorism" if any war could ever be called that, in the post 9/11 fervor? Despite constant claims of being "great against terrorists?"

Expect us to do all the work while they sit back?

No neighbors would ever grant Israel military access through them, especially considering how often Israel violates their airspace with raids. Not even the US could convince the coalition hosts for Desert Storm, Saudi Arabia, to do that. 

Hell, it's so bad that Israel's can have their trade directly attacked by the Houthis, at a known maritime chokepoint of Aden, and Israel *still* can't send any warships to escort their ships around there even after a year of such attacks.

Israel can fuck right off.

Xezshibole

Do you not realize how absolutely psychotic this is?

Lev_Davidovich

Then all their refugees will be spread all over the west and dismantle the west from the inside. And they'll be very angry.

spillirks

That’s exactly what you people said on Iraq.

AliMans05

Attacking Iran is the correct decision for who? No doubt you have counted the endless terrorism that will result from this action in your calculation and who knows how many innocent lives will be lost as a result of this action all around the world, but that’s fine.

Ornery-Ticket834

What is correct about this attack? 
Destabilizing an entire country for the sake of military strategy when there isn’t a risk of war? 
How about all the people? 
War without any security over the condemned people of the country is outright evil when there is no imminent risk of war. 
OP needs to realize that the Iranian government is a terrorist group that is primarily harming the Iranian people. Any “solution” would have to consider what will happen to the people of the nation and the preservation of their culture, otherwise you are thinking like an ancient tribesman with nothing but bloodshed on your mind.

Timely_Reveal1206

As just about everyone else has already stated, this presents MANY ethical/moral/legal problems. However, even looking at this from a purely pragmatic point of view you are still very wrong. 

Taking out Iran would likely destabilize the middle east, and the last few times this happened, it didn't turn out well for the West (Arab spring, Iranian revolution, etc). 

The most likely beneficiary of the type of conflict you so eagerly advocate for would not be America or Israel, but Saudi Arabia. The Saudis are Iran's biggest rival for control and influence over the Muslim world. Moreover, Saudi Arabia and Iran are the chief nations in the Sunni/Shia divide. The Saudis and Iran are such bitter rivals that the Saudis have approved of Arab nations normalizing relations with Israel and have even formed an alliance with Israel for the sole purpose of opposing Iran.

Taking out Iran would not only remove any reason for Arab nations to normalize relations with Israel, it would also place Saudi Arabia in a position of undisputed power and influence  throughout the Muslim world. This would likely lead to an almost entirely united front against Israel. And that is without considering the damage it would do to our soft power, and how it galvanize Muslim opinion against the West. Even when the US invaded Iraq to protect Kuwait, the US was seen as the bullying adventurist by the Muslim world.

You have a child's idea of international relations. This is not HoI4. Going to war with Iran would result in tens or hundreds of thousands of pointless deaths and would primarily serve to benefit our enemies.

fb00ne

'Freeing Iran from Islam' might have the exact opposite effect you are after.


Iran has always been a regional power, often more than that.   Holding them back is a corrupt Islamic govt.  Remove that they return to the dominant power in the region.


Look at Russia, 3 different govts over the last 100 yrs, always returns to the same nasty expansionist ways. 

Rude_Egg_6204

What in WW3 is this post?

Iran has a massive drone force. 

You see how Russia is getting slaughtered in Ukraine, that's what would happen to USA/Israel forces.

whater39

Iran is not Syria Iran is like no other countries in Middle East. Iranian people want their country and their rights back.they want Pahlavi their own identity. Not terrorist and fucking mullahs who are not related to our civilization to our culture to our beautiful country. And the ones who brought them should help to remove them.not only for sake of Iran but also for the world

Unique-Strategy-9572

Why would the US have a goal to control the Middle East when we have our own large successful country to control?

indifferentunicorn

camilowidehead-

iDamoh

makingplans12345

SnooHedgehogs1029

Israel doesn't have to strike Iran then maybe Iran wouldn't retaliate. WORLD PEACE ✌️

AlextheLion02

You assume the Iranian government will be defeated. I don't think it will. And certainly it wouldn't be defeated easily. Iran is a highly mountainous country with an enormous military and decades of propaganda against the invaders you are discussing. A totally unprovoked invasion is going to lead to a whole-of-country level of resistance that will make conquest virtually impossible. 




Simply getting US soldiers over the mountains to Tehran would be a massive and bloody challenge with constant irregular attacks in the rear. And forget trying to take a city of that size with like a paratrooper unit. You'll get all your soldiers killed that way. (See the Russian VDV trying that in Kyiv a few years ago and getting entire units wiped out). 


A war to conquer a huge country like Iran, with absolutely no pretext that anyone in Iran gives a shit about is going to be a bloody quagmire in the mountains.


You say not being bound by moral constraints, so let's say you're willing to do something straight up genocidal like nuking Tehran. That will be a big blow to the central government for sure, but it will also irredeemably make you hated by every person who remains alive there. You will be in guerrilla warfare forever. 

huadpe

So you think it is a good idea to create an existential threat against Iran and Russia and China? And how is that cheaper or more desirable than diplomacy and economic cooperation?!

phdpessimist

Are you Jewish? We the American people are sick and tired of useless and stupid wars being fought in the Middle East with no tangible gain to us. We got nothing out of Iraq and pretty much nothing out of Afghanistan after killing Bin Laden. The only country that would advocate for this is Israel - you guys can go fight Iran on your own. The United States needs to focus on the real threat here - China. Iran is a distraction.

It is such a strange political fantasy. Iran is currently just a leadership that the people hate. Topple the regime and you will have a modern, educated and progressive country.

One-Strength-1978

I'm fascinated by the idea of direct administration of Iran as a colony without any democracy, nation building, or coalitions. Insurgents would love it. The cost of Iraq and Afghanistan would be multiplied beyond belief.

I'm guessing you're under 25.

ekpyroticflow

Tsk tsk, its really easy for those who aren't there to say they want to attack.

Some of us prefer to have chill deployments!

T-34Panzer

This is Bibi getting the US into another Mideast war.  They need to distract from the bloodlust in Gaza.  With friends like Israel who needs enemies.

No-Measurement4639

Here’s the thing, being prison boss is great, until you start to lose and then everyone is waiting to put the boot in

Major_Bad_thoughts

Right OP...tell us...what imminent threat is Israel defending right now... Go on...

Jungloveshismum

I think if Israel can find a way without relying on the us to take out the current regime Iran, it would benefit the whole world

Mundane-Magazine-789

This is repugnant. Who is this person and how can they be in the same planet as us? This has to be a bot?

Disastrous-Crow-1634

Discounting the very real deterrence Iran has vs such an existential attack. Would destroy the works economy for several months/years.

Puzzleheaded-End3692

Iran has reportedly prepared missiles for potential strikes on US bases in the Middle East if the US engages in military actions supporting Israel.

Iran-US Tensions and Military Threats

Why This Matters

Public Sentiment Summary

Highlighted Comments

Parties Involved

What the people want