Iranians rally worldwide under ‘A nation held hostage’ slogan

I'll say this - its never over until its over. And its not over yet, not even close to over.

Although islamic believers are dispersing, secularism is gaining traction among the younger ones. I think the latter will win in the long run.

What should the world do exactly?

Out of curiosity- I know you say Trump fucked this up so badly, but what do you think about the decapitation strike? Was that a good or bad thing? I ask because you are most certainly a lot more in touch than I am, but I do think that the opportunity that strike presented was potentially why the whole military operation has come off half baked.

>the war is their fault Can you elaborate on this >hate Trump because he fked this up I agree >the world not caring about Iran They do but the situation is complicated. There have been protests everywhere and even the Trump admin said they want to “liberate” the Iranians at the start of this campaign to leverage that support (although I don’t believe he himself cares about anyone not American) >force women to wear uniforms What else have they done to make you feel this way? I always here about the oppression on women but not much else so I’m curious

There is only so much care to go around: Ukraine, Palestine, Lebanon, Sudan, increasingly the US itself…Iran. Everyone is exhausted. I am truly sorry that you are feeling so tired and full of hate, too. 😞 I don’t know what else to say, except…that hope is nice to have — but do you *need* it? What happens if you let it go? (This sounds weird, I know. But sometimes, I think that hope harms more than it helps; it is a distraction that can cause more pain, perhaps, than it heals.)

Nice burner account, mossad agent

I wouldn't even call it rooting against the US. It's more like having the US deal with the consequences of incompetence.

To be fair Trump has consistently said under no circumstances could Iran be allowed to attain a nuclear weapon since he officially began his political career in 2016.

[deleted]

>Did we disable Iran's ability to choke the Strait? No. The goal of the campaign is to either f*** up the IRGC enough that it agrees to give up its nuclear material, enrichment and ballistic missiles in exchange for survival or inducing regime change/civil war. Since the war isn't over - we can't assess if that has failed or not. We can definitely say that great strides have been made in that direction and that losses of military equipment and men have been kept at an acceptable level. Thats about it.

You’re optimistic because Trump is in office? Really? Could the love for Trump be skewing that this whole thing is a big win for Iran and the US? I can agree hatred for Trump does influence some people. It’s not a failure for us. It’s a failure for every country in that region. Nobody is winning here. He’s wasted billions of dollars, the lives of IS soldiers who had no way to defend against drones and were murdered due to that and now oil is going higher and higher. So let’s say we’re able to open up the strait again. We’re just at the beginning. It’s so painfully clear there wasn’t really a well thought out plan in place. All while Americans are suffering. With struggling to afford food, rent, insurance, etc. it seems this administration isn’t America first as they make it seem. Especially also this whole no new wars c***. Also doesn’t help we’ve apparently won 30 times already and completely obliterated all of irans military. Trump needs to shut up. My god. To be clear the Iran regime needs to go down but man we’ve gone about the worst way. Our allies agree there. Also maybe our allies would be willing to help if we didn’t alienate ourselves and insult all the time.

Trump has a pathological fixation on ‘making deals’; its really an extension of his narcissism, but, because of that it’s something that a lot of his self conception is built on, is something that he’ll insert just about anywhere. But, because it’s mainly an extension of his narcissism, his actual understanding of the activity is pretty bastardized; he views it so that (A) deal making is a particular skill set (B) that this skill set is a particular skill set that, in Trumps mind, only he really has and (C) ‘deals’ are informal understandings between two parties, in which the production of a deal, while it can, theoretically, be mutually beneficial to both parties, in actuality, it only exist to glorify one of those parties (take a stab at which one Trump thinks it glorifies). As such, deals often do not have to be adhered to when one party feels as if that glorification of them has ceased. It’s a toddlers understanding of negotiation or practical associations; it rests on numerous faulty psychological assumptions, first and foremost being of course, that Trump has never been a good ‘deal maker’ either in actual, contractual deals, or in the more informal ones his self understanding is predicated on; he was a rich kid who was able to use his money to leverage and pressure people, he never gained a good understanding of relationships, psychology, or even pressure tactics beyond ‘berate them until they acquiesce’. Of course, Trumps narcissism prevents him from understanding this is a skill he doesn’t possess - malignant narcissists are bad at comprehending or even acknowledging that people either know or can do things they can’t do, but for Trump, in deal making, this inability is pretty much existential; Trump is a mostly talentless hack who is lacking in any reflective capability, but, because he has predicated so much of his identity in this one, ‘special’ skill which he has but nobody else does, he’ll cram it anywhere and everywhere, because otherwise he would be forced to contend with his own incapabilities. In the somewhat lower stakes world of New York real estate, this pathological obsession would’ve been annoying, but nothing too threatening; in high international politics and military conflict, it is one of the absolute worst characteristics for a political leader to have; as you pointed out, this pathology leads to a constant legitimization of the other party, even a party one is in open military conflict with. It is constantly treating the other party as an _equivalent_ actor (though, unlike in liberal democratic arrangements, this equivalency is generally not predicated on a supposed adherence to rational values, but rather to, in Trumps authoritarian and crude psychological paradigm, ‘force’ and ‘strength’) because, without this equivalency, the other party couldn’t glorify Trump in the same way. Irans actually figured out how to f*** with Trump pretty well by constantly refusing his deal - by allowing him to constantly propose deals, while consistently ignoring these propositions or being as bizarre in their demands as he is, they’re able to vamp off of the legitimacy that Trump, as the US president, is conferring on them, establishing an equivalency between the US and Iran that lowers the US and raises up Iran, all the while continually frustrating his desire for adoration, leading to him returning again and again to the same demands, and looking weaker and weaker as a result. This is one of the factors, besides the global public’s skepticism towards American interventions in the Middle East, the overall incompetency that this war has been propagated with, and or course the red light green light nonsense that’s been happening at the Strait of Hormuz (and the ensuing economic chaos that that has been causing) that has been allowing Iran of all countries (the regime which literally mowed down thirty thousand protestors only four months ago) to pull ahead in the optics war.

Yeah the problem is Trump is obsessed by zero sum game deals where he crushes the other party and can look good to the zombies worshiping him And that's clearly not something he is in any position to impose here.

>It's just pattern recognition after a quarter century of Bad Idea Wars in the middle east. I wouldn't be optimistic if this was being lead by any president. Our allies seem to agree for their own reasons. It's not pattern recognition, it's recency bias. A more serious analysis of wars in the middle east waged by USA would show that the scorecard is still on the positive side, especially if you incorporate proper rational discipline with counterfactuals and also checking the times USA didn't intervene. Millions died because of lack of interventions. But yes, if you ignore all that and do it half assed, it looks terrible. If you look at it properly, and consider the local situation (80% of iranians against regime BEFORe january massacre, 89% pro democracy, 49% for reza pahlavi's transition plan), and check why previous failures happened, you'll realize that this is an exceptional opportunity.

Russia has nukes. Iran does not (yet). That's mostly what this is about. It's shocking how many armchair strategists on listnook do not understand this. The second Iran gets nukes and suitable delivery methods, the second we can no longer be aggressive militarily. The EU and most US administrations would have LOVED to have been able to shut down Russia military, but that's impossible when they're a serious nuclear threat.

A state run by religious fanatic clerics + building nukes = really bad. It’s that simple, all the rest are just additives, it’s why the world can’t help Ukraine, because joining in would cause a nuclear armageddon, you wouldn’t want a hostile nation that is propping up proxies to gain regional superiority to also become immune to any external interventions down the line. It’s also why Iran is so hellbent on that Uranium, because now that its proxies are weakened, without a nuke and a large arsenal of ballistic missiles, they can’t expand their influence, they can’t become the powerful regional super power that they intent to be.

Most of those states are content to stay home and oppress their own people. Iran is aggressive and expansionist, and has a long long record of attacks on Americans and American allies. The mass slaughter was a combination of the last straw, and a sign that the regime was weak enough to be worth attacking.

Attacking Iran helps russia financially (they made an extra 40-80 billion from the war a while ago, no idea if thats profits or just sales) and it strengthens the current Iran regime. The current regime gets raised from really hated to hated. The main loss will be at the expense of the civilians. The current war also reduces fuel reserves which will likely be replaced at a higher cost later. It also weakens nato and Europe which plays into russias hand. It also uses up nato weapons and further backlogs US weapons deliveries. It's a good thing other countries haven't joined in or the already depleted stocks would get even more depleted. It will take the US over 4 years of manufacturing to replace what they lost in this war. The US is currently delaying deliveries and refusing refunds to countries.

You don't seem to understand the implication, so I spell it out for you: Not having the military campaign to destroy the Iranian regime will lead to many orders of magnitude more death. The comparisons was an illustration of that.

Those are pretty dope. I might have to go see them in concert.