Public sentiment toward US-Iran relations is predominantly skeptical and critical of foreign involvement, particularly by the US and Britain, highlighting a deep-rooted distrust linked to historical conflicts over oil and power. Many commenters express a desire for peace, accountability, and the recognition of the complexities of Middle Eastern geopolitics, while condemning military interventions and advocating for non-interventionist approaches to resolve tensions.

United States

Iran

United Kingdom

Israel

Author clearly knows very little about military affairs. Claiming the U.S. did not have air superiority over the Houthis is one of the dumbest things I’ve read in a while. Israel already has air superiority over Iran and their Air Force is a fraction the size of the US’s. Iran’s military capabilities are being degraded with each passing day and they haven’t shot down a single plane or killed anyone other than some civilians in Tel Aviv.

There’s reasonable arguments to be made against escalation but this author hardly touches on them. They also fail to present a realizable alternative. Just a lot of nothing really.

Francisco-De-Miranda

I’ll try to share how this is being interpreted from the Israeli perspective, based on commentary in the Israeli media.

Israel sees three possible endgames, all likely to unfold within weeks:

1. **Diplomatic Climbdown**: After suffering the destruction of many strategic assets in a sustained bombing campaign, and recognizing the vulnerability of key infrastructure like the Bandar Abbas port and South Pars gas field, Iran, facing growing domestic unrest, opts to return to negotiations with the U.S. It settles for a face-saving deal that preserves its nuclear capabilities on paper, but effectively blocks any military development.
2. **Escalation and Retaliation**: Iran, facing similar losses, miscalculates, perhaps by attempting to close the Strait of Hormuz, attacking Saudi oil facilities, or directing its proxies to hit a U.S. base. In response, the U.S. deploys B-2 or B-52 bombers from Diego Garcia. They launch a major airstrike campaign, destroying nuclear facilities like Fordow and severely setting back Iran’s nuclear program.
3. **Trump’s Wildcard Move**: Donald Trump, always unpredictable, decides Israel is gaining too much strategic prestige. Wanting to be remembered as the one who ended Iran’s nuclear threat, he orders a decisive U.S. strike, not to aid Israel, but to take sole credit.

None of these scenarios involve U.S. ground troops or efforts at regime change.

valleyofdawn

So if I'm reading the links correctly, the "risk of significant casualties" is two planes being lost during either landing maneuvers or evasive maneuvers, and "never gaining air superiority" is that a few unarmed drones might be shot down? 


That portion, at least, is not the most persuasive argument.

Mantergeistmann

Analysis from 2024?

Not advocating for anything, but as of now, with IAF alone, it's an air campaign with total air superiority, they've already lost their air defenses networks, which usually is the hardest part.

They've already lost most of the mixers, fuel, and facilities to manufacture more ballistic missiles, whatever ballistic missiles they have, that's it, they can't make any more.

They've lost considerable percentage of their ability to manufacture drone engines, and the rest is being targeted/ongoing.

The regime will keep losing their remaining assets more and more from the air with each day, because, again, there are no air defenses left and the IAF can leisurely fly over Iran uncontested as if it was Gaza. so it looks like the nuclear program will be buried from the air, and they can't even take out reconnaissance drones monitoring their activities.

So, this doesn't sounds like it's up to date at all.

b-jensen

Would it though? Iran just lost their topmost military leaders, above ground nuclear facilities, air bases and air defenses in a single night, were shown that their sworn enemy had literally drone factories right outside their capital and have been getting absolutely smacked around by the IAF. 



Their crown jewel Hezbollah was reduced to nothing and refused to participate in the Israel-Iran conflict when ordered to. The Houthis have proven to be a joke and are acting as target practice for Israeli and American warships and bombers for the last year. 


All of this before the US even did anything serious or legitimate against Iran. Iran has proven itself to be a paper tiger, a rich dog with all bark and no bite at all. A not-insignificant portion of own population hugely despises it and is seen to celebrate while the IRGC gets bombed. 



Would it really be a catastrophe? The combined knowledge and resources of Israel and the US would easily take out any further threats and severely diminish its influence in the region. The many populations living under threat would act against it, same as is happening against Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza. Iran has shown that it's hubris has no base to stand on and that it's enemies have far more resolve and cunning than it was ever prepared for

Space_Bungalow

The Iranian regime either capitulates and collapses, or it fully commits to building a nuclear arsenal. The latter commits Israel to a perpetual air campaign which will presumably drag us in before long.

Seattle_gldr_rdr

im_a_goat_factory

The U.S. is not going to war with Iran. We might just shoot rockets from entering Israel and that would be it.

fuggitdude22

Whoever thinks the US wouldn't gain air superiority doesn't understand both our current capabilities and history.

Firecracker048

&gt; Israel’s surprise attack on Iran... has almost certainly blown up any chance of reaching the nuclear deal the U.S. was pursuing... 

Did it though? Sure it stopped talks for the moment, but the parties were at an impasse anyway. When they inevitably go back to the table Iran will have a much weaker h&amp;.  

&gt; ...Netanyahu... also recklessly endangered the 40k U.S. troops deployed in the region, putting them at immediate risk of Iranian retaliation, which could draw America into a war with Iran.  

Technically true, but that's a weird way of saying "if Iran attacks U.S. troops despite not actually being attacked by the U.S. it can draw America into a war with Iran".  
Also what's with this weird tendency to pretend like the U.S. dosen't have any agency? If attacked it could just tank it or respond moderately/symbolically. No one is going to force the U.S. to initiate a groumd invasion.

&gt; The misguided… invasion of Iraq was also a war to forestall nuclear proliferation. Disaster ensued, and not just because Saddam Hussein didn’t have WMDs. 

It just wasn't. It was an attempt to replace an hostile dictatorship with an allied democracy. The mostly false threat of WMDs was being floated around as an extra justification for a war the U.S. sought out regardless.  
There also objectively was an Iraqi nuclear program. It didn't go far &amp; didn't really factor into U.S. involvement because Israel already killed it.

&gt; But as the fruitless $7 billion campaign against the Houthis showed, airstrikes are exorbitantly expensive, entail significant risks of American casualties &amp; are likely to fail anyway. The U.S. never even gained air superiority over the Houthis, a ragtag militant group with the resource base of an impoverished country, Yemen, over which it couldn’t even consolidate control.  

This is so nonsensical I don't even know where to start...  The goal of bombing Iran would be to set their nuclear program back - not overthrow the government. The U.S. didn't try to "consolidate control" over Yemen at any point. The risk of American casualties from an air campaign is little to none (show me **one** American airmen killed in Yemen. **Israel** currently gained air superiority over Iran ffs). and, describing an organization of over 300k men ruling a country as "ragtag" is absurd.  
Speaking of their size, maybe they wouldn't have become such a big problem had the U.S. fully committed to supporting the Saudi coalition backing the Yemeni government over a decade ago - it's almost like letting threats fester &amp; grow just results in worse problems...  
Also, the Houthis started interfering with global shipping, what was the alternative to pressuring them? let them? fail to appease them by trying to pressure the wealthier nuclear power instead?

&gt; Iran is far more capable of defending itself than the Houthis are. If airstrikes fail to destroy Iran’s nuclear capabilities, pressure would dramatically increase on U.S. forces to pair an aerial barrage with a ground component, perhaps something akin to the “Afghan model” the U.S. used to topple the Taliban. We know how that went... 

She literally said "Americans of all political stripes oppose war with Iran" only a few paragraphs ago. Which one is it? America can't be simultaneously reluctant to get involved in any way &amp; willing to fully commit to an invasion if mild involvement fails.

&gt; Even a best-case scenario, in which the U.S. helps destroy the majority of Iranian nuclear sites, would only delay Iran’s progress... War cannot prevent weaponization in the long term, which is why **either diplomacy or benign neglect** have always been better choices for handling Iran. Its enrichment program is over 20 years old, spread across multiple sites in the Islamic Republic, &amp; employs untold thousands of scientists — 3,000 at the Isfahan facility alone… Israel would not be able to kill them all…

Mostly ture, though I'd say negotiating with a country that can get a bomb with a month of concentrated effort &amp; negotiating with a country that could have a warhead by tomorrow given the order, is inherently different.  
Also, describing diplomacy - completely reasonable efforts to reach a mutual agreement where Iran takes a few steps away from a bomb, and "benign neglect" - doing nothing in the face of a potentially irreversible development of nuclear weapons that would trigger a globally destabilizing arms race at best, is insane.

&gt; …Iran would likely be able to rebuild its nuclear facilities quickly. And a defiant Iranian regime would no doubt be determined on weaponizing to deter…

Yes, Iran will be able to rebuild baseline capabilities fast.  
But it's not like it will back off if left unopposed. Also nukes are good at deterring existential threats, not conventional attacks from other nuclear powers.

&gt; and even if the regime were to be deposed, what then? For all the Iranian government’s faults, **a bad government is preferable to the chaos of no government**. Do we really want to turn Iran into a failed state…?  

Depends on how "bad" it is.  
This regime isn't bad just because it's a dictatorship. It's a theocratic empire that routinely murders hundreds of it's own people and intentionally destabilized countries throughout the region. It's proxy Hezbollah held the Assad regime alive, it's Houthi proxy destroyed Yemen, **it has the blood of hundreds of thousands on it's hands**.  
So yes, some chaos is preferable.

OwlMan_001

&gt; The United States never even gained air superiority over the Houthis, a ragtag militant group with the resource base of an impoverished country, Yemen, over which it couldn’t even consolidate control.

Is this some sort of joke?  In what world has the US not gained air superiority over the Houthis?  

&gt; Iran is far more capable of defending itself than the Houthis are.

Is that why they weren’t able to shoot down a single Israeli jet?  

&gt; If airstrikes fail to destroy Iran’s nuclear capabilities, pressure would dramatically increase on U.S. forces to pair an aerial barrage with a ground component, perhaps something akin to the “Afghan model” the United States used to topple the Taliban.

Nobody is calling for an invasion of Iran, and nobody will.  

&gt; Even a best-case scenario, in which the United States helps destroy the majority of Iranian nuclear sites, would only delay Iran’s progress toward developing a bomb. 

Yes, that’s the point.  And when they start getting closer again we delay them again.  

I don’t even want to read further.  The author is someone who would aptly be depicted sniffing their own farts in a South Park episode.

Ok-Yogurt-5552

I read this and laughed.  Writer is either living in an echo chamber or has an agenda. The facts are not supportive of reality. Iran is screwed and knows it. It has ONLY one play: disrupt gulf oil shipping. Global recession would ensue but USA would rebound and Iran would be no more.

Maximum_Locksmith_29

Read a little about "[Defense Priorities](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_Priorities)" to understand the ideological perspective the writer is coming from.

This opinion piece is framed in such a biased way that I couldn’t get past the first sentence.  The author is clearly just anti Israel and willing to spin the same old tropes.  Let’s be clear, Iran is the aggressor here, Iran chants “death to Israel, death to America”, Iran has been launching attacks on Israel (directly and via proxies) for decades.  Iran would drop a nuclear bomb on NYTimes headquarters if it could

Late_Company6926

Is the vibe over in Iran that the citizens are really cool but the leadership is nutty? Is that a decent take? I don’t know the culture or politics well.

johnnygobbs1

God is on their side. Not sure which one, but he's on one of their sides, I think. Maybe.

Spaceginja

Maybe the war itself might be easy on the air war, but any ground action would be catastrophic. Mix much of the geography of Afghanistan, mixed with a population double that of Iraq. The current regime in Iran is horrible, but their collapse would lead to chaos and a refugee crisis worse than we’ve seen before.

I could see there being regime change, but if anyone thinks that the replacement regime is sympathetic to the US and not Russia/China, I’d love to see the evidence to suggest that. It could lead to a more competent dictatorship which is less ideological and more pragmatic which if they hate the West, could make Iran an even greater threat.

Fortress0802

Iran has been in need of this since 1979.

Wolvercote

The catasrophe would be the US dominating another country and getting stuck into decades of guerrila warfare and wasting billions of tax dollars for no real reason

Wraeclast66

This is a wildly dated take. Iran has already lost. They have no air defense and Israel has freedom to methodically take out their remain weaponry and nuclear facilities. Perhaps take out some of the regime if they reveal themselves.

The US literally has nothing left to do except share intel and maybe expedite the process with larger bombers. 

Unless the NYT meant it would be a catastrophe for the regime?

KosherPigBalls

It's easy to be a rabid warmonger on the internet when you are obese unemployed and live with your parents.

No we don't need another war in the middle east. We send BILLIONS in aid and military support to Israel. For decades they have been the biggest recipients of US taxpayer welfare. Israel will be just fine. They have this conflict under control and don't need our direct involvement.

Substantial-Ad5541

No one ever asks “how will we pay for this?” Just add it to the national debt 144% over GDP

Sauerkrautkid7

&gt;War With Iran Would Be a Catastrophe 

No really. They seem to be incredibly weak and incompetent. The worst scenario is the uncertainty of the power vacuum if the regime falls. 

In Iraq it brought us ISIS but, as bad as they were, people forget that Saddam was responsible for the invasion of Iran causing the death of more than a million people, up to 182,000 Kurds in their counter insurgency campaigns that included the use of chemical weapons that killed thousands and the invasion of Kuwait. It's not like he was so much better an option, as I have seen people claim in recent years.

The Iranian regime needs to suffer consequences for fueling the extremist groups that caused the disaster that started with them pushing Hamas to attack on October 7 to stop the Israeli-Saudi deal. They clearly stand in the way of peace in the region, but it looks like Israel can handle them with little need for support from the US or anybody else.

MarzipanTop4944

DrVonSchlossen

It’d certainly be a catastrophe for Iran’s government. However, perhaps there’d ve the silver lining of the people finally standing up and releasing themselves for the shackles of theocratic rule. Iran is a traditional cultural and political powerhouse, it’d be fantastic if they could resume their historical position of rival but respected trade partner and equal of the west.

UAINTTYRONE

Malady17

Nope, no more wars in the Middle East for the US. We are kinda done with it—such a waste of $$$$ and our military people. Saudis, Turkey, or Egypt need to step it up and control those areas.

Buc_ees

"And even if the regime were to be deposed, what then? For all the Iranian government’s faults, a bad government is preferable to the chaos of no government. Do we really want to turn Iran into a failed state, like Iraq or Libya after the United States attacked those countries?"

From the perspective of Israel, and probably the U.S, Iran being a failed state would be a massive improvement over the Jihadist state that funds half the world's terrorism and has the ability to produce nuclear weapons. Very few countries would be negatively affected by Iran being a failed state, except that it might make the Strait of Hormuz more dangerous. Would there be groups in Iran attacking ships going through the strait? I'm not sure what their goal would be.

Nerdslayer2

DeansFrenchOnion1

Leftist troll. Relax. There won’t be a war where US would suffer casualties. Israel is taking care of it, and acting as cannon fodder.

winterchainz

Certainly a ground invasion of Iran would be inadvisable as would an attempt to initiate regime change, but a targeted strike on Iran's nuclear facilities looks more and more reasonable by the day.

Forsaken-Bobcat-491

Iran stands no chance against the US. It would be a grave and monumental error to even contemplate the idea. I understand that there is bad blood between the two nations. But defend your borders as best as you can, do not go on offense, particularly when you are outclassed in every way.

Historical-Motor9710

Israel will continue to kill Iran's leaders and generals. Scientists etc..  keep destroying launch sites/ mobile batteries, will resort to destroying infrastructure  and do its best to create the right conditions for Iranians to overthrow the Islamist government.... Iran right now will need to throw everything it has at israel.  Not a few hundred missile and drones, thousand of them.... enough the iron done etc cannot keep up and more than 50% get through.  The only way to do any real damage is to overwhelm it..   they would need to hit airports, military bases, air defences,  infrastructure.  They cannot last against Israel... eventually they will run out of missiles and drones..  they got one real shot at it..  only then will they get a stalemate 

Bladesamah

Yeah there’s no reason to risk American lives or equipment here- we really should stop helping israel

What kind of ally bombs the Iranians while we’re conducting negotiations and then asks us to help them fight after that? 

There’s no popular support for another middle eastern war

alextheguyfromthesth

Are you sure? I don't think we should get back into a 20 year war, but this wouldn't be a food rationing/war bonds event. It seems like Israel's handling it pretty good right now.

swawesome52

It's gonna be catastrophic because of how close Iran is with China and Russia. This even will definitely trigger China to attack Taiwan and at that point WW3 will be raging. Apocalyptic

13sonic

Don’t underestimate the very powerful Jewish lobby groups in Washington and across the United States - the U.S may very well get dragged in over some very strong lobbying by these groups. 

100% expecting down votes but i don’t think the average American wants to enter into a war with Iran.

liftingbro90

I keep reading this as AUS war with Iran would be a catastrophe and I can only agree with that conclusion.

TopCatLupin

How does one get boots on the ground in Iran from Israel you ask? Oh yeah, the original 51st state. Good ole Iraq. Forgot we still control that. So there is a path forward to accomplish either the US or Israel staging a ground invasion there.

Holiday-Medicine4168

LilRed2023

Everyone in these replies be like “listen, Israel can simply bomb Iran, and that will get Iran to surrender”. When has only air ever worked in getting a country to surrender? Didn’t we learn this lesson in the 40’s? Bombing campaigns increase a people’s willingness to fight, not the other way around.

The_Punjabi_Prince

This is so similar to 2003 weapons of mass destruction. Also, they have been talking about Iran getting a nuke for 15 years as if it was imminent. Most importantly, the only thing to deter nuclear war is mutual destruction, Iran won't nuke anybody because they know they will get nuked. Cold War 2.0

Ornery-Plantain-4940

So now that Iran’s nuclear facilities are gone, Hamas is obliterated, Hezbollah is dismantled, and Syria is under a new regime…Bibi can rest and go to prison now

eo37

If you put boots on the ground, it has a 40% chance of being so. 

  
If we just do airstrikes, no one is going to care within a year, outside of Foreign Affairs writers.

spinosaurs70

"Yet even Hezbollah continues to function in Lebanon, and Iran is far more powerful."  
That's disingenuous. Obviously you're not going to completely erase any actor through force of arms - to insinuate otherwise is sneaky. What's worth noting about Hezbollah is that the Lebanese army is operating against Hezbollah for the first time in decades. Lebanon is asserting its national sovereignty, and the government is warning Hezbollah against getting further involved against Israel. That's pretty historic. 

  
Also - while I'm here - 'catastrophe' strikes me as a bit facile as well. I remember the Iraq war - this isn't that. If the US flies its bomber's home without boots on the ground (and - why would they? Let Khamenei witness the shambles of his revolution in quiet defeat), then all this will all be a distant memory by end of summer.

AJGrayTay

Wonder what happens to Ukraine now with this war. Russia must like the increasing oil prices and Putin publicly saying he wants ALL of ukraine

iLov3musk

The first question: how successful was the bombing mission?  Has Fordow really been obliterated?  If so, that's great news.

But we have to wait for assessments.  Everyone here is talking about the day after.  Much will depend on what actually happened today.

Oldschool728603

Doing nothing is also a gamble. Counting on diplomacy and hoping treaties will be upheld is also a gamble. Gambles are measured on their risks and rewards.  

Now Iran is in an intolerable position with little to no leverage, the IAF is unopposed in their skies, their best equipment and leadership are dwindling or eliminated, and the nuclear program was pushed years back - this is as close to perfect conditions for U.S. negotiators as possible, the regime’s need to save face is the only hurdle left.

**So what supposedly makes this gamble worse?**

&gt; Even in the event that the United States and Israel “succeed” in their goals of destroying Fordow or even ousting the Islamic Republic, these would likely be ephemeral accomplishments or Pyrrhic victories. Destroyed equipment can be rebuilt. A tyrannical government can be replaced by an even more rapacious one

W.T.F. ... What would those people even consider a success?

&gt; it is a particularly bad bet when compared with the alternative: an agreement that imposes robust verification on Iran’s nuclear activities and puts enough time on the clock to detect and preempt a breakout. 

That was the primary course of action for literal decades. It just didn't work. Maintaing the ability for a breakout was practically an Iranian pre-condition - even when an agreement was signed Iran just kept enriching to weapons grade under it.  
The current war broke out immediately after it came out negotiations went nowhere.
**To call something an alternative it actually needs to be a viable option**.

&gt; Under these conditions, exhausting every possibility to achieve such an agreement is the only responsible course. 

Setting the program back a few years and keeping Iran under intolerable pressure **is such a possibility** to get whatever agreement is desirable - ideally one that excludes any nuclear program.  
War is diplomacy by other means and all that.

This article joins the long notorious tradition of arguments taking nuanced considerations and abusing them to the point of denying basic common sense.  
Someone should really make a bingo card for those:  
- There are limitations to power? - nothing strategic can ever be achieved militarily.  
- Power vacuums exist as a concept? - actually defeating enemies is always bad.  
- Mission creep exists as a concept? - bombing one specific site is practically a full scale ground invasion (and probably a return to the draft).
- Violence can radicalize people? - Any use of lethal force strengthens the enemy! There are absolutely no limits or enabling circumstances to that effect!

No idea what would constitute an awesome, unproblematic "gamble".

My concern is that Trump is appearing to succeed on multiple levels.

Revolvlover

Thankfully the US has a level-headed reasonable Commander in Chief, whose military advisors have loads of experience and a history of de-escalation.

This will all prob blow over in… about 2 or 3 weeks, maybe sooner. 

The_Life_Aquatic

There a real chance of mission creep, overextentding our forces more thin, causing ever greater poltical polarization at home, more blooming debt, a new wave of terror by pro-Iranian, Hezbollah, Iraqi Shia milltias connected sleeper cells planted by the irgc/quds forces over the past couple decades in the Iranian campaign of dawa and taaqiya deception to convert non-muslims and non-shia to the khomenist brand of twelver shia islam), massive blowback from yet another American intervention in West Asia, and causing a new recruitment for moslem fundamentalists like Hezbollah, ISIS, Al qaeda, hizbulthair, the Muslim Brotherhood, etc. to attack the west , and a wave of anti-americanism across the world where Americans are boycotted, mob muggings and beating ,,even lynchings of American tourists, because people around the globe are sick and tired of us interventionism.

Meanwhile china, india and other powers are just sitting  back, using things like soft power,  negioating from a position of strength,  de-coupling from the dollar, having win-win situations in deals, debt diplomacy, and real economic partnerships to exert their influences in the world.

Plus if this includes more and more airstrikes , proxy wars, a nightmarish boots on the ground situation, iran giving the nod to sleeper cell  terrorism on the homefront ,  a new wave of anti-american "yankee doodle go home imperalist" type of mass protests, higher intreasts rates, higher gas prices, there a good chance it becomes highly unpopular to the American people who are already burned out  from post-cold war interventionism, foreign aid, mission creep, nation building,  democracy building , "invade the world , invite the world", etc. Policies that has burned out the vast majority of Americans from our adventures in Ukraine, Libya, Somolia, Afghanistan,  iraq, Syria, Kosvo, Bosnia &amp; Herzegovina, Yemen, the shael , and so forth, and no American will vote for a neoliberal Democrat party or a neocon GOP for generations, and may cause unrest here if poltical polarization grows if this goes beyond these rather sucessful us strikes.

Psychological-Flow55

I'd appreciate feedback on the following.

The US cannot prevent Iran from closing the Strait to tankers; Iran has been preparing for this for decades, the geography facilitates hidden placement of anti-ship munitions, and tankers are too vulnerable.

Closing the Strait to everyone except themselves would be attractive to Iran. China would continue to purchase Iranian fossil fuels via overland pipelines and China-flagged tankers would be invulnerable to interdiction by the US Navy. However, Israel would likely disable Iranian pipelines and export terminals with minimal-enough damage to allow Iran to recommence exports if they reopen the Strait. For this reason, Iran may cease their own exports rather than suffer damage to their infrastructure.

If Iran closes the Strait, all exports from Iran and and all exports by others through the Strait would be indefinitely prevented. Saudi Arabia would continue sending some fossil exports through the Red Sea and China would likely not oppose the US more-thoroughly quashing the Houthis' abilities to interdict this trade in order to receive some exports themselves (anyone know how long it would take Saudi Arabia to increase this pipeline capacity?). Iran would zero out their export revenue and their population would blame the regime for the resultant economic effects. With Israel continuing to attrit Revolutionary Guard command &amp; equipment/personnel concentrations, weakening Iran's internal security apparatus, that could lead to the regime being overthrown over a period of years.

Would anyone opine how Iran closing the Strait (indefinitely constraining Chinese fossil imports) would affect Chinese calculations vis-a-vis Taiwan?

There are many variables, but I can imagine the US concluding that Iran closing the Strait, justifying the above, is a most-favorable outcome.

flossypants

Netenyahu said jump and Trump said, "How high?" Weakest president ever.

BlatantFalsehood

OP gives only 1/2 of a valuable opinion.  The other half would be to let us know how Iran having as many nukes as they want would be preferable

rockeye13

This was clearly American aggression on a foreign adversary. They’re weak and we kicked them. I don’t see the problem, they would gladly do the same if in the position of power. Why should the US treat them any other way?

Sorry but I heard the same story after Operation Praying Mantis back in 1988. 
And what happened?

SGReichswehr

Yes… Allow a Iranian nuclear program and ballistic missile programs to progress… Brilliant idea

Friendly-Cellist-553

The propaganda machine is strong in this thread 

openupimwiththedawg

Resident-Watch4252

Iran has been negotiated in bar faith for years. Russia has been negotiating in bad faith since the inauguration in Jan 2015. U.S. just showed that it's very dangerous, too negotiate in bad faith. Hopefully Russia was watching.

airman8472

I loved reading FA and subscribed for years.  I didn’t see much correlations with what was written and what actually happened after though

MindBeginning5217

Obviously not… They’re an irresponsible terrorist state… They armed Hamas Iraqi militias the Houties and Hezbollah … look at the recent investigation into Hezbola operations in Great Britain. Look at the way women are beaten tortured  and killed over dress code violations… these people are crazy

Regime change from followed by Iran joining NATO would be hilarious.

Phssthp0kThePak

I hear Israel has a nuclear program. Would it be consistent to bomb Tel Aviv until they dismantle it?

Graymouzer

\[SS from the essay by Andrew P. Miller, Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress and was U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Israeli-Palestinian Affairs from December 2022 to June 2024.\]

President Donald Trump announced on June 19 that he will decide in the next two weeks whether the United States will join Israel’s military campaign in Iran. If he decides in the affirmative, the United States will be entering a war in the Middle East with ambiguous objectives (including but not necessarily limited to countering nuclear proliferation), an incomplete strategy, and a high risk of entrapment.

This prospect has, understandably and rightly, evoked painful memories of the Iraq war for many Americans. As a president who claimed to oppose the Iraq war, Trump, along with his allies, has tried to frame possible U.S. military intervention in Iran in limited terms, with a focus on the single target of the underground Fordow nuclear enrichment facility, which Israel may not be capable of destroying on its own. This may be an accurate reflection of Trump’s intentions, but even that decision would carry major risks, including Iranian retaliation against U.S. military facilities in the Gulf or terrorist attacks against Americans abroad, which could prolong and deepen U.S. involvement in Iran. Even if a limited U.S. operation goes according to plan with no retaliation, a decision to intervene in the conflict would, rather than end Iran’s nuclear program, make a sustainable solution harder to achieve.

ForeignAffairsMag

Nothing like a gamble from the guy who bankrupted a casino

OptimisticRealist__

Shouldn't have attacked Ukraine and destroyed your economy, military and global political leverage. Oops!

meeme123

No one is talking about how a regime collapse in Iran will affect Putin. It would be absolutely catastrophic for him.

Fruitcake6969

If Russia fears, then it is a good news indeed.

macross1984

Is this going to mess up drone deliveries to Russia? I bet it's not gonna help.

johnp299

Putin is losing “friends”.  Now there’s only Tucker Carlson, Kim Jong, that jackass in Belarus, Steven Seagal and…his nukes.  Who you hang out with says a lot about you.

GFSoylentgreen

Didn't Russian get this party started by having Iran fire missiles at cargo ships and launching drone and missiles  attacks at Israel?

LightSaberLust_

Putin would however benefit significantly from higher oil prices.

eisenh0wer

Gopu_17

Guy_GuyGuy

coachhunter2

I think this conflict might stil be a net positive for Russia. It may lose a weapon supplier, but rising oil prices are a boon to its economy.

jargo3

He’ll tell trump to back off. TACO will do what TACO told.

Iinktolyn

Self exile Putin.

This is the only real option for humanity.

I don't care if you live on just exit the lime light!

[deleted]

schu4KSU

Russia next hunt for a new middle east ally.

Russia "What are your thoughts on the USA?"

Possible ally "I hate the USA"

Russia "Good good, now what do you think about israel?"

Possible ally "I hate israel"

Russia "m... next!"

daywall

Russia has lost its pristine status of the Soviet Union and is now upset that the United States is in control. Russia is just a shadow of the former Soviet Union.

Guilty-Top-7

It's afraid, IT'S AFRAID! *cheering and guns shooting in air*

amayako353

If this war plays out right Russia is fucked. The best thing NATO countries could do is to reach out to leaders in the Iranian government and propose surrender on the basis of free and fair elections, elimination of sanctions, and a path to joining NATO. We destroy one of the biggest arms suppliers to terrorist groups in the world and have a friendly nation on Russia’s border. This won’t happen because the current admin is either dumb or anti-American but this is the path we should be taking.

triple-verbosity

It would be funny if the next disaster for Russia is China deciding it's had enough of North Korea and coordinates a coup for a more Chinese friendly less Russian friendly puppet.

kingmanic

Trump is expecting a Complete Unconditional Surrender from Iran to stop this conflict.

If America intervenes directly and bombs Tehran or Khamenei,and achieves that goal Trump will become a Legend in American politics, BUT !! 

IF US Bombs Iran , and suddenly Russia or China or both intervenes and sends boots on the ground and then US backs out fearing a larger conflict then Khamenei will become the Poster boy of the Anti American Resistance and also the Hero in the Muslim World . And Trump's legacy will be always known as "TACO" .

History is in the making in the few hours or days .

Royal-Hunter3892

If they pick Iran, it's inevitable,... Bwahahaha! 

No, seriously, they'll get their asses handed to them (again) if they support Iran militarily. 

Something to be said for picking your friends wisely and not out of desperation, just because you've alienated everyone else.

Nightredditing

Putin still has North Korea, and in some extent, China. Under the table he also has Brazil's Lula's balls squished and a few others. Iran not that big of a deal, since Russia already produces Iranian drones on its territory.

no_choice99

Can’t just not be buttholes.  Let’s see be “nice” or be “buttholes”.  Gotta have to go with buttholes clear choice 🤦‍♀️ 

inbetween-genders

One good thing about Iran losing is that its another example of how a country starting wars wrecks itself. It gives me a bit more hope for the future of humanity.

Dauntless_Idiot

tel aviv is basically is a mini russia 

russia has not even sold interceptor missiles to iran in sufficent quantities to iran at the behest of israel nor helped them in any capacity jewsh lobby is very strong in russia

there are lots of russian jews who have dual citizenship with israel in the ranks of putins clownship that is ruining russian peoples lifes

saanelan

Well they worship the orange turd daily, what did you expect

iliumoptical

lordGinkgo

Then put it to a vote in formal session. Enablers.

moemegaiota

PotentialFruit4282

I betcha North Dakota in general doesn't condone it.

rezanentevil

State party known for having sex with children agree with convicted felon, for rape, that supporting a terrorist organization, Netanyahu's government, by committing an unprovoked attack on a country that was defending itself from previously mentioned terrorist organization because of the "two weeks out" lie that has been first spewed a quarter century ago. BuT tHeY sPoNsOr TeRrOrIsTs! We literally have masked people with guns snatching people off the streets. AMERICAN CITIZENS being harassed by unidentifiable armed groups is fucking terrorism. The call is coming from inside the house.

uginscion

"If Kamala wins only death and destruction await because she is the candidate of endless wars. I am the candidate of peace. I am peace."

Olorin_TheMaia

The messaging was planned before the bombing was. If it’s one thing we learned from signal gate is that these doofuses care more about how things look than they do about putting a competent plan together.

Impossible_Penalty13

Of course they do the war mongering pieces of sh.

justaguy9922

President Trump emphasizes a non-urgent approach to negotiating with Iran amidst escalating tensions and regional instability.

US-Iran Relations and Middle East Tensions

Why This Matters

Public Sentiment Summary

Highlighted Comments

Parties Involved

What the people want