War, what is it good for?

[Jamiet99uk]

Think it's safe to say the US is basically in the war now. Trump is calling for Iran's unconditional surrender.

He also said they're not going to assassinate Iran's head of state "for now". The "for now" element of that can only be interpreted as a threat to kill him if Iran does not surrender.

What does an "unconditional surrender" for Iran even look like?

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

It's definitely an out-loud threat to kill Khomeini if they don't capitulate. Some reporting I saw suggested that Israel would have already assassinated Khomeini were it not for a US request to hold off.

"Unconditional" no doubt covers a full dismantling of the military nuclear project, but could conceivably extend to other goals (some conventional military disarmament; forcible cutting ties with the Houthis, Hamas, and Hezbollah; maybe even a change in leadership).

This could yet be a long war, but it's looking like a deeply humiliating defeat for Iran.

[CaptainFritz28]

Y'know why Iran doesn't get nukes? Because they've promised to use them. If your plan is to let them do so because you can't handle Israel, then you're just as brainwashed as you're calling Bert.

When? Where and when was this promise made, by whom? I have looked online and cannot find any reliable source that verifies this.

They've called for Israel's destruction many times. Perhaps I'll post a source later when I'm not so busy, but just about everyone, from their supreme leader to various generals and the sentiment of the common people, wants Israel destroyed.
Unless you mean to say that their funding of a multiplicity of terrorist groups with the specific goal of Israel's destruction means nothing.

[Jamiet99uk]

Y'know why Iran doesn't get nukes? Because they've promised to use them. If your plan is to let them do so because you can't handle Israel, then you're just as brainwashed as you're calling Bert.

When? Where and when was this promise made, by whom? I have looked online and cannot find any reliable source that verifies this.

They've called for Israel's destruction many times. Perhaps I'll post a source later when I'm not so busy, but just about everyone, from their supreme leader to various generals and the sentiment of the common people, wants Israel destroyed.
Unless you mean to say that their funding of a multiplicity of terrorist groups with the specific goal of Israel's destruction means nothing.

It does not automatically mean promising to launch nuclear weapons, which is the specific thing you claimed.

Launching nukes is kind of a big deal.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

When? Where and when was this promise made, by whom? I have looked online and cannot find any reliable source that verifies this.

They've called for Israel's destruction many times. Perhaps I'll post a source later when I'm not so busy, but just about everyone, from their supreme leader to various generals and the sentiment of the common people, wants Israel destroyed.
Unless you mean to say that their funding of a multiplicity of terrorist groups with the specific goal of Israel's destruction means nothing.

It does not automatically mean promising to launch nuclear weapons, which is the specific thing you claimed.

Launching nukes is kind of a big deal.

A key problem here is Iran denies it is developing nukes. In fact, Iran’s leaders say having nuclear weapons is forbidden under Islam (via Khamenei’s “nuclear fatwa”).

There is no case of Iran threatening to nuke Israel with nukes they don't have. There are, however, countless examples of senior Iranians threatening to end Israel's existence. That puts them in the same genocidal category as Jamie, the difference being (i) Iran already engages in endless proxy wars against Israel for that purpose and (ii) they're developing nuclear weapons that could kill every Israeli with the push of a button.

Of course, even with a bomb Iran almost certainly wouldn't first-strike Israel, because Israel would retaliate in kind. Likewise, Israel could nuke Tehran today, but won't for a whole host of good reasons (that Pakistan would nuke Israel being foremost among them). But the logic of MAD only works if neither side emboldens messianic psychopaths (as both sides have). Most of the rest of the world (including the Arab states) greatly prefer only one volatile and messianic country to have nukes in the region rather than two.

[CaptainFritz28]

When? Where and when was this promise made, by whom? I have looked online and cannot find any reliable source that verifies this.

They've called for Israel's destruction many times. Perhaps I'll post a source later when I'm not so busy, but just about everyone, from their supreme leader to various generals and the sentiment of the common people, wants Israel destroyed.
Unless you mean to say that their funding of a multiplicity of terrorist groups with the specific goal of Israel's destruction means nothing.

It does not automatically mean promising to launch nuclear weapons, which is the specific thing you claimed.

Launching nukes is kind of a big deal.

I'll defer to Bert's response, and add a caveat to my earlier statement that you are right, they've not promised specifically to nuke Israel. But they have promised to destroy them and have taken action to work towards that even at great cost to themselves. I don't think anyone wants to see a conventional war between two nuclear powers with madmen at their heads. If Iran got a nuke, that would set a clock that I think would almost inevitably end in one or the other launching.

I conflated "destruction of Israel at all costs" to "nuking Israel at the cost of being nuked." My apologies.

[Jamiet99uk]

On the subject of Iran we should not forget that the West destroyed Iran’s progressive democracy in 1953, bringing about a military coup which deposed a democratic a leader beloved of his people, and installing a brutal dictatorship in its place.

The US and UK have been terrorising Iran for over 60 years.

Israel is the vanguard of Western imperialism in the region, and Netanyahu is now openly calling for assassination and regime change in Iran, clearly with Trump's backing. They want to destroy the country to extend their hegemony. These are murderous, evil people.

An Israel-Western "regime change" operation against Iran will unavoidably lead to hundreds of thousands of innocent civilian deaths. We have seen this play out before, several times in the past decades. Anyone who tries to justify this fucking madness will have more blood on their hands than they can ever wash off.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

The West erred (criminally) by installing a brutal dictatorship in Iran. I'm not sure how that's an argument in favour of maintaining the brutal dictatorship that continues to run Iran. Regime change could definitely produce an even worse government, but it's not a foregone conclusion that Iranian leadership can only get worse. A silver lining to hope for in this conflict is that it ultimately takes both Bibi and the Mullahs out of power.

[Octavious]

The world according to Jamie:

Britain was responsible for the creation of the brutal Israeli regime therefore has a responsibility to facilitate it's removal

Britain was responsible for the creation of the brutal Iranian regime therefore has a responsibility to ensure it's survival

[Jamiet99uk]

The West erred (criminally) by installing a brutal dictatorship in Iran. I'm not sure how that's an argument in favour of maintaining the brutal dictatorship that continues to run Iran. Regime change could definitely produce an even worse government, but it's not a foregone conclusion that Iranian leadership can only get worse. A silver lining to hope for in this conflict is that it ultimately takes both Bibi and the Mullahs out of power.

First it's an argument against the West backing Israel in just massacring civilians wherever it bloody well wants. Which is absolutely what the West is doing.

Second, why do you think Bibi will be removed / lose power as a result of any of this?

[Jamiet99uk]

The world according to Jamie:

Britain was responsible for the creation of the brutal Israeli regime therefore has a responsibility to facilitate it's removal

Britain was responsible for the creation of the brutal Iranian regime therefore has a responsibility to ensure it's survival

Entirely incorrect because the (secular) dictatorship installed by the West in Iran in 1953, and led by the absolute monarch chosen and backed by the West, was itself overthrown by a religious uprising which installed the regime that is in place in Iran today.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

Second, why do you think Bibi will be removed / lose power as a result of any of this?

The war is going well now, but that's not guaranteed to continue. Bibi has demonstrated a penchant for starting wars but not for finishing them. If the war goes south, it was Bibi's gamble. If the war goes swimmingly he's no doubt popular for a time—but he loses the boogeyman he's predicated his whole political career on. Debates about when and how to end the war could yet pull apart his coalition even (perhaps especially) if the war goes "well" from an Israeli perspective.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

The world according to Jamie:

Britain was responsible for the creation of the brutal Israeli regime therefore has a responsibility to facilitate it's removal

Britain was responsible for the creation of the brutal Iranian regime therefore has a responsibility to ensure it's survival

Entirely incorrect because the (secular) dictatorship installed by the West in Iran in 1953, and led by the absolute monarch chosen and backed by the West, was itself overthrown by a religious uprising which installed the regime that is in place in Iran today.

What resemblance does modern day Israel bear to the government propped up by the British mandate? Israel has been an independent country since 1948. It's changed from a socialist to nationalist country. It's demographics are unrecognizably changed. Britain is no more responsible for modern day Israel than it is for modern day Iran, which is to say basically not at all.

These sorts of historical debates seem to muddy the waters. None of that history can be taken back and the people who made those decisions are senile or dead. It's probably best for those intervening (or not) in this conflict to base their decisions on the current state of affairs rather than some vision of righting historical injustice.

[Jamiet99uk]

The world according to Jamie:

Britain was responsible for the creation of the brutal Israeli regime therefore has a responsibility to facilitate it's removal

Britain was responsible for the creation of the brutal Iranian regime therefore has a responsibility to ensure it's survival

Entirely incorrect because the (secular) dictatorship installed by the West in Iran in 1953, and led by the absolute monarch chosen and backed by the West, was itself overthrown by a religious uprising which installed the regime that is in place in Iran today.

What resemblance does modern day Israel bear to the government propped up by the British mandate? Israel has been an independent country since 1948. It's changed from a socialist to nationalist country. It's demographics are unrecognizably changed. Britain is no more responsible for modern day Israel than it is for modern day Iran, which is to say basically not at all.

Modern day Israel was forged on the basis of Zionist atrocities in 1948 which partly came about due to Britain's mis-handling of the situation, and which the British then stepped back and failed to prevent.

[Jamiet99uk]

You clearly know very little about this history. It might benefit you to read some.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

You clearly know very little about this history. It might benefit you to read some.

I don't see how. It's honestly not obvious to me how decisions in the 1940s are particularly relevant, or why they're more relevant than the Ottoman empire decisions before them, or the Mamluk Sultanate before that, etc.

The people in the 40s who committed and supported the Nakba were bad hombres. They're literally all long dead in 2025. 80+ years later we're talking about an entirely new crop of people on both sides who have lived their lives under totally changed conditions.

The badness of the Gazan genocide today is about the harm to current people. Whether Iran or Israel prevails in the current conflict matters on the basis of what people in both countries are going to suffer in the coming months and the character of their current governments, not whether it provides some poetic righting of an historic injustice.

[Jamiet99uk]

Oh so we should just stop talking about the holocaust then because nobody who did it is still alive?

Got it.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

Oh so we should just stop talking about the holocaust then because nobody who did it is still alive?

Got it.

The Holocaust is a very poignant example of how exterminationist violence plays out. It is not, however, a great argument to use in favour of characterizing modern day Germany/Germans, nor as some endless unquestionable foundational argument for the Jewish-nationalist version of Israel.

Today’s policy choices should be weighed primarily by their impact on living people and current realities. I don’t see how punishing or rewarding entire populations today makes sense as payback for what long-dead governments did 80+ years ago, let alone why we'd stop the chain at 80 years and not 200 or 2000.