Iran vs the US Thread

[Aureumterra]

Iran? Deserves support?

Typically, no.
But against foreign, hemegonic aggression? Yes.
War will not improve the circumstances of the Iranian people.

It's pretty clear they preferred the Shah

[North German Realm]

Typically, no.
But against foreign, hemegonic aggression? Yes.
War will not improve the circumstances of the Iranian people.

It's pretty clear they preferred the Shah

Eh, the article is from some 10 odd years ago, and even before most of the problems in modern Iran even started (The nuclear related sanctions, the Green Movement, the terrible economic policies of 2nd term Ahmadinejad, et al). The support for the IR has only dropped since then.

[The South Falls]

Iran doesn't have a military nuclear infastructure.

They are quickly heading there. By June 27th they will begin enriching weapons-grade uranium.

[Novus America]

First of all the Iranian coup, while supported by the US, was done by Iranians. Coups can be supported from without but always come from WITHIN.

Sure the US has played some shady great power games in the past, but that does not automatically make Iran a victim always.

And do you have any evidence the drone was actually in Iranian airspace?

And what war? The US is not in a war with Iran.

I mean, yes? But that doesn't defeat my point regardless, nor shed any kind light upon the U.S's track record what-so-ever. Do you think the Brazilians, Salvadorians, Chilians, and any other group really care about that so called 'catch'? The U.S supported, backed, and incentivized such actions. Take a small moment to put yourself into the world view of the Iranians.

A victim? Like the U.S, apparently? What justifies U.S actions?
And lol, just a drone? Surely the U.S has done nothing far worse.

I know. I'm asking you how one would help anything, like the U.S seems eager to pull itself into.

The Clerics who rule Iran ALSO supported the coup! How can they in good faith complain about a coup they supported?

And yes the US has done bad things, does not mean the US is always bad.

The tanker war was 30 years ago, and resolved. You cannot justify a wrong act 30 years later because of something in the past.

The US clearly does not want a full blown war. Otherwise we would have responded more aggressively.

[Nakena]

First of all the Iranian coup, while supported by the US, was done by Iranians. Coups can be supported from without but always come from WITHIN.

Sure the US has played some shady great power games in the past, but that does not automatically make Iran a victim always.

And do you have any evidence the drone was actually in Iranian airspace?

And what war? The US is not in a war with Iran.

I mean, yes? But that doesn't defeat my point regardless, nor shed any kind light upon the U.S's track record what-so-ever. Do you think the Brazilians, Salvadorians, Chilians, and any other group really care about that so called 'catch'? The U.S supported, backed, and incentivized such actions. Take a small moment to put yourself into the world view of the Iranians.

A victim? Like the U.S, apparently? What justifies U.S actions?
And lol, just a drone? Surely the U.S has done nothing far worse.

I know. I'm asking you how one would help anything, like the U.S seems eager to pull itself into.

We don't care about antiimp talking points. When those are only because it goes against the US? Not that they care about the historical fate of the iranian nation, right?

[Novus America]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.c ... ormuz.html

I do not think they want a full blown war, but they could still start one by miscalculation.

Nothing to lose? They have their nation, existing power structure, and sovereignty to lose. Look at all the nations the U.S have been active in - Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, why would Iran have 'nothing to lose' in joining the likes of those nations, currently fractured, upheaveled, and occupied?

Calling Trump's 'Bluff'? The United States has proven itself fully willing to join conflicts in the past. With people like John Bolton at the forefront, thy want retaliation. Just look at all the news of a 'limited strike' - There is no such thing as a limited strike! It is violating the sovereignty of another nation and bombing it with munitions designed to kill people and destroy infrastructure. Would Iran be an aggressor if it shot those aircraft out of the sky?
Furthermore, is this really something to bluff over? And I mean that in terms of the U.S Gov't and leadership. Iran isn't in the place to win a conventional war, only one to give the U.S a bloody nose before they ultimately collapse into asymmetrical war.
Perhaps question the sanctions, the U.S military positioning, the history between the U.S and Iran, to better build a picture of circumstances? Iran cannot harm the United States in any real capacity outside of Iran's own backyard. Why are we there to begin with

If the regime feels they are at risk of falling the have nothing to lose. You actually think the clerics give a shit about the people?

And limited strikes are a thing.
Not all military strikes result in a full scale war.

And Iran fought a limited war with the US in the past.

But again I do not think they want a full scale war, they want to cause enough damage short of starting a full war, but things could get out of hand.

Also launching limited attacks not wanting a full war can still be aggressive.

For all your talk about sovereignty, the UAE and Kuwait also have every right to host US forces if the wish to do so. That right is not reduced by being “in Iran’s backyard”.

[Peshma]

I mean, yes? But that doesn't defeat my point regardless, nor shed any kind light upon the U.S's track record what-so-ever. Do you think the Brazilians, Salvadorians, Chilians, and any other group really care about that so called 'catch'? The U.S supported, backed, and incentivized such actions. Take a small moment to put yourself into the world view of the Iranians.

A victim? Like the U.S, apparently? What justifies U.S actions?
And lol, just a drone? Surely the U.S has done nothing far worse.

I know. I'm asking you how one would help anything, like the U.S seems eager to pull itself into.

Dude, we don't care about your antiimp talking points. You are only care about it because it is against the US? Not that you care about the historical fate of the iranian nation, right?

What duty does the U.S government have in the historical fate of the Iranian nation to begin with, or the fate of many other nations it has actively overthrown and torn apart from democracy? It is their struggling, one we kicked them into in the first place.

Nothing to lose? They have their nation, existing power structure, and sovereignty to lose. Look at all the nations the U.S have been active in - Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, why would Iran have 'nothing to lose' in joining the likes of those nations, currently fractured, upheaveled, and occupied?

Calling Trump's 'Bluff'? The United States has proven itself fully willing to join conflicts in the past. With people like John Bolton at the forefront, thy want retaliation. Just look at all the news of a 'limited strike' - There is no such thing as a limited strike! It is violating the sovereignty of another nation and bombing it with munitions designed to kill people and destroy infrastructure. Would Iran be an aggressor if it shot those aircraft out of the sky?
Furthermore, is this really something to bluff over? And I mean that in terms of the U.S Gov't and leadership. Iran isn't in the place to win a conventional war, only one to give the U.S a bloody nose before they ultimately collapse into asymmetrical war.
Perhaps question the sanctions, the U.S military positioning, the history between the U.S and Iran, to better build a picture of circumstances? Iran cannot harm the United States in any real capacity outside of Iran's own backyard. Why are we there to begin with

If the regime feels they are at risk of falling the have nothing to lose. You actually think the clerics give a shit about the people?

And limited strikes are a thing.
Not all military strikes result in a full scale war.

And Iran fought a limited war with the US in the past.

But again I do not think they want a full scale war, they want to cause enough damage short of starting a full war, but things could get out of hand.

Also launching limited attacks not wanting a full war can still be aggressive.

For all your talk about sovereignty, the UAE and Kuwait also have every right to host US forces if the wish to do so. That right is not reduced by being “in Iran’s backyard”.

Just like how Pearl Harbor was a limited strike, yes?

What if Russia flew into Alaska and blew up several military ships and oil platforms, would that be a 'limited strike'?

A 'Limited Strike' is penetrating a nation with military elements and bombing it, degrading the bombed nation's ability to fight back. Iran is fully within its right to blow any aircraft or navy seal teams doing so out of the sky and water.

Or is self-defense agaisnt such actions somehow 'escalation' compared to going into another country and bombing it and its people?

[Unstoppable Empire of Doom]

I wish this thread had a poll to see how many people think the war will happen and how many dont.

[Aureumterra]

It's pretty clear they preferred the Shah

Eh, the article is from some 10 odd years ago, and even before most of the problems in modern Iran even started (The nuclear related sanctions, the Green Movement, the terrible economic policies of 2nd term Ahmadinejad, et al). The support for the IR has only dropped since then.

We need a secularist republican revolution in Iran now

[Nakena]

What duty does the U.S government have in the historical fate of the Iranian nation to begin with, or the fate of many other nations it has actively overthrown and torn apart from democracy? It is their struggling, one we kicked them into in the first place.

Iran under Prime Minister Mosaddegh was a still a Monarchy. What really happened is that the CIA and the Shahs twinsister (who probably should have been on the throne instead) had to talk Mohammed Reza Pahlavi into getting it together so he'd dimiss the unruly Prime Minister. Before he was thinking about abdicating and becomming a horse breeder in southern france, because he couldn stand the drama in his homeland. Which being said, the dismissal of Mosaddegh was entirely in accordance with the constitional order and custom. Only its execution went a bit rocky.

Perhaps it would have been if he had abdicated, because he really hadn what it took unlike his father. As it showed in 1978/79.

[Novus America]

Dude, we don't care about your antiimp talking points. You are only care about it because it is against the US? Not that you care about the historical fate of the iranian nation, right?

What duty does the U.S government have in the historical fate of the Iranian nation to begin with, or the fate of many other nations it has actively overthrown and torn apart from democracy? It is their struggling, one we kicked them into in the first place.

If the regime feels they are at risk of falling the have nothing to lose. You actually think the clerics give a shit about the people?

And limited strikes are a thing.
Not all military strikes result in a full scale war.

And Iran fought a limited war with the US in the past.

But again I do not think they want a full scale war, they want to cause enough damage short of starting a full war, but things could get out of hand.

Also launching limited attacks not wanting a full war can still be aggressive.

For all your talk about sovereignty, the UAE and Kuwait also have every right to host US forces if the wish to do so. That right is not reduced by being “in Iran’s backyard”.

Just like how Pearl Harbor was a limited strike, yes?

What if Russia flew into Alaska and blew up several military ships and oil platforms, would that be a 'limited strike'?

A 'Limited Strike' is penetrating a nation with military elements and bombing it, degrading the bombed nation's ability to fight back. Iran is fully within its right to blow any aircraft or navy seal teams doing so out of the sky and water.

Or is self-defense agaisnt such actions somehow 'escalation' compared to going into another country and bombing it and its people?

I guess you missed the point where Mosaddegh canceled elections he was losing, dissolved parliament and tried to seize dictatorial powers.
And lost the support of many Iranians. Again it was Iranians that overthrew him.
It was much more complicated than US v democracy.

Pearl Harbor was not a limited strike, it was part of a full scale war and invasion of US and Allied territories.

Your hypothetical Russian action could be a limited strike though, if it did not intend to go beyond that. You are missing the point. I am simply saying limited strikes exist. They may be justified, but also may not be. They are not automatically good or bad.

But yes they would be within him their rights to take defensive actions against a limited strike.
I would expect them to do so.
Whether or not it would be escalation would depend on what exactly their response was.
And escalation is not inherently right or wrong either.

[North German Realm]

Eh, the article is from some 10 odd years ago, and even before most of the problems in modern Iran even started (The nuclear related sanctions, the Green Movement, the terrible economic policies of 2nd term Ahmadinejad, et al). The support for the IR has only dropped since then.

We need a secularist republican revolution in Iran now

Uh no. A restoration of the monarchy is the only possible way Iran can actually heal, and even then it's really a hit-or-miss. Republicanism -and more importantly Islamic Governance- has fucked us too much to actually know for sure (other than the fact any form of republicanism will end up as bad as the Islamic Republic)

Iran under Prime Minister Mosaddegh was a still a Monarchy. What really happened is that the CIA and the Shahs twinsister (who probably should have been on the throne instead) had to talk Mohammed Reza Pahlavi into getting it together so he'd dimiss the unruly Prime Minister. Before he was thinking about ragequitting and becomming a horse breeder in southern france, because he couldn stand the drama in his homeland. Which being said, the dismissal of Mosaddegh was entirely in accordance with the constitional order and custom. Only its execution went a bit rocky.

It needs to be said that Mossadeq was indeed a republican. One of his first actions as the Prime Minister was to in effect give himself totalitarian-level absolute power. When the Shah officially dismissed him, his reaction -of course- was to try and arrest the messenger and hide the decree. Mossadeq was never really popular outside of a small group in National Front (even they kinda hated him by 1979), and the revisionism regarding his coup and political activity was just something the IR started in accordance to their "if the Shah did it, it was bad" policy of revisionism.

[The South Falls]

Eh, the article is from some 10 odd years ago, and even before most of the problems in modern Iran even started (The nuclear related sanctions, the Green Movement, the terrible economic policies of 2nd term Ahmadinejad, et al). The support for the IR has only dropped since then.

We need a secularist republican revolution in Iran now

And that'll collapse into civil war.

[Al Mumtahanah]

Eh, the article is from some 10 odd years ago, and even before most of the problems in modern Iran even started (The nuclear related sanctions, the Green Movement, the terrible economic policies of 2nd term Ahmadinejad, et al). The support for the IR has only dropped since then.

We need a secularist republican revolution in Iran now

You are Iranian?

[Novus America]

We need a secularist republican revolution in Iran now

Uh no. A restoration of the monarchy is the only possible way Iran can actually heal, and even then it's really a hit-or-miss. Republicanism -and more importantly Islamic Governance- has fucked us too much to actually know for sure (other than the fact any form of republicanism will end up as bad as the Islamic Republic)

Iran under Prime Minister Mosaddegh was a still a Monarchy. What really happened is that the CIA and the Shahs twinsister (who probably should have been on the throne instead) had to talk Mohammed Reza Pahlavi into getting it together so he'd dimiss the unruly Prime Minister. Before he was thinking about ragequitting and becomming a horse breeder in southern france, because he couldn stand the drama in his homeland. Which being said, the dismissal of Mosaddegh was entirely in accordance with the constitional order and custom. Only its execution went a bit rocky.

It needs to be said that Mossadeq was indeed a republican. One of his first actions as the Prime Minister was to in effect give himself totalitarian-level absolute power. When the Shah officially dismissed him, his reaction -of course- was to try and arrest the messenger and hide the decree. Mossadeq was never really popular outside of a small group in National Front (even they kinda hated him by 1979), and the revisionism regarding his coup and political activity was just something the IR started in accordance to their "if the Shah did it, it was bad" policy of revisionism.

Well he was a “republican” in as much as he was no supporter of the monarchy, but he certainly was in no way committed to democracy either.

[North German Realm]

Uh no. A restoration of the monarchy is the only possible way Iran can actually heal, and even then it's really a hit-or-miss. Republicanism -and more importantly Islamic Governance- has fucked us too much to actually know for sure (other than the fact any form of republicanism will end up as bad as the Islamic Republic)


It needs to be said that Mossadeq was indeed a republican. One of his first actions as the Prime Minister was to in effect give himself totalitarian-level absolute power. When the Shah officially dismissed him, his reaction -of course- was to try and arrest the messenger and hide the decree. Mossadeq was never really popular outside of a small group in National Front (even they kinda hated him by 1979), and the revisionism regarding his coup and political activity was just something the IR started in accordance to their "if the Shah did it, it was bad" policy of revisionism.

Well he was a “republican” in as much as he was no supporter of the monarchy, but he certainly was in no way committed to democracy either.

Most republicans aren't.

[Nakena]

It needs to be said that Mossadeq was indeed a republican. One of his first actions as the Prime Minister was to in effect give himself totalitarian-level absolute power. When the Shah officially dismissed him, his reaction -of course- was to try and arrest the messenger and hide the decree. Mossadeq was never really popular outside of a small group in National Front (even they kinda hated him by 1979), and the revisionism regarding his coup and political activity was just something the IR started in accordance to their "if the Shah did it, it was bad" policy of revisionism.

That is very interesting I recall having read that Mossadeq's own power base was extremly small and he had just a handful of MPs to back him and worked on thin ice generally and managed only to stay in power through a series of insane luck and political trickery and memery alike.

As for the revisionism, it usually, always, comes from anti-american anti-imperialists, who usually cite it (as it happened here) in one line with Chile or Guetemala. It keeps being grinded, though it has gone less.

[North German Realm]

It needs to be said that Mossadeq was indeed a republican. One of his first actions as the Prime Minister was to in effect give himself totalitarian-level absolute power. When the Shah officially dismissed him, his reaction -of course- was to try and arrest the messenger and hide the decree. Mossadeq was never really popular outside of a small group in National Front (even they kinda hated him by 1979), and the revisionism regarding his coup and political activity was just something the IR started in accordance to their "if the Shah did it, it was bad" policy of revisionism.

That is very interesting I recall having read that Mossadeq's own power base was extremly small and he had just a handful of MPs to back him and worked on thin ice generally and managed only to stay in power through a series of insane luck and political trickery and memery alike.

As for the revisionism, it usually, always, comes from anti-american anti-imperialists, who usually cite it (as it happened here) in one line with Chile or Guetemala. It keeps being grinded, though it has gone less.

He used to have a popular base in the Parliament early in his reign, especially during (and immediately after) his fiasco in the Hague regarding Persian Oil, but really, he had lost that support by the time he ordered the dissolution of the Parliament.

[Peshma]

What duty does the U.S government have in the historical fate of the Iranian nation to begin with, or the fate of many other nations it has actively overthrown and torn apart from democracy? It is their struggling, one we kicked them into in the first place.



Just like how Pearl Harbor was a limited strike, yes?

What if Russia flew into Alaska and blew up several military ships and oil platforms, would that be a 'limited strike'?

A 'Limited Strike' is penetrating a nation with military elements and bombing it, degrading the bombed nation's ability to fight back. Iran is fully within its right to blow any aircraft or navy seal teams doing so out of the sky and water.

Or is self-defense agaisnt such actions somehow 'escalation' compared to going into another country and bombing it and its people?

I guess you missed the point where Mosaddegh canceled elections he was losing, dissolved parliament and tried to seize dictatorial powers.
And lost the support of many Iranians. Again it was Iranians that overthrew him.
It was much more complicated than US v democracy.

Pearl Harbor was not a limited strike, it was part of a full scale war and invasion of US and Allied territories.

Your hypothetical Russian action could be a limited strike though, if it did not intend to go beyond that. You are missing the point. I am simply saying limited strikes exist. They may be justified, but also may not be. They are not automatically good or bad.

But yes they would be within him their rights to take defensive actions against a limited strike.
I would expect them to do so.
Whether or not it would be escalation would depend on what exactly their response was.
And escalation is not inherently right or wrong either.

The U.S has been one of the biggest enemy of Democracy since the Spanish American War. It isn't the business of the U.S gov't.

The goal of the Japanese was reduction of American strike capability. What would be the goal of U.S strike?

Define what you mean by 'reaction'. If they did blow jets out of the sky, capture a pilot or two, I'm fairly certain you'd be calling for increased action. That's the point of 'limited strikes', it isn't retaliation, which is a false idea in the first place, but it's actively degrading the nation's right to protect itself.

It is wrong. It is the slaughter of human beings, the starvation of tens of thousands, for nothing that directly benefits you or me. Compared to the alternative of leaving them alone and allowing them their economy?

[UniversalCommons]

Iran had the capability in 2016 to build medium range ballistic missiles capable of carrying nuclear missiiles. In 2018, Iran built medium range ballistic missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads and tested them. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/ir ... ys-n942586 This is public knowledge. Iran has been building up its missile capability. There is an inventory of medium range ballistic missiles in Iran which is being expanded. https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/i ... -inventory This is all public knowledge easily findable if you look. People are driven by emotion and do not check things first. There is an arsenal being built which could easily lead to war.

[North German Realm]

Iran had the capability in 2016 to build medium range ballistic missiles capable of carrying nuclear missiiles. In 2018, Iran built medium range ballistic missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads and tested them. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/ir ... ys-n942586 This is public knowledge. Iran has been building up its missile capability. There is an inventory of medium range ballistic missiles in Iran which is being expanded. https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/i ... -inventory This is all public knowledge easily findable if you look. People are driven by emotion and do not check things first. There is an arsenal being built which could easily lead to war.

Honestly it's not "could" and it's "will". Iran has never hid the fact that it doesn't even recognize the very existence of Israel as a nation-state (not to mention the fact they've been in a state of proxy war with them for the last... what, 10 years? more?). The moment The mullahs become sure of their missile capability, they're gonna try to attack Israel.

[Peshma]

Iran had the capability in 2016 to build medium range ballistic missiles capable of carrying nuclear missiiles. In 2018, Iran built medium range ballistic missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads and tested them. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/ir ... ys-n942586 This is public knowledge. Iran has been building up its missile capability. There is an inventory of medium range ballistic missiles in Iran which is being expanded. https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/i ... -inventory This is all public knowledge easily findable if you look. People are driven by emotion and do not check things first. There is an arsenal being built which could easily lead to war.

Wow, they built missiles that every power berating them has.

And oh, look at that, they do not have a military nuclear infrastructure.
They've been ragging on Iran in its pursuit of energy independence and pondering and 'what if'ing about the construction of nuclear weapons for over a decade.

[Al Mumtahanah]

Iran had the capability in 2016 to build medium range ballistic missiles capable of carrying nuclear missiiles. In 2018, Iran built medium range ballistic missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads and tested them. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/ir ... ys-n942586 This is public knowledge. Iran has been building up its missile capability. There is an inventory of medium range ballistic missiles in Iran which is being expanded. https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/i ... -inventory This is all public knowledge easily findable if you look. People are driven by emotion and do not check things first. There is an arsenal being built which could easily lead to war.

America already uses missles on Muslims....

[Novus America]

I guess you missed the point where Mosaddegh canceled elections he was losing, dissolved parliament and tried to seize dictatorial powers.
And lost the support of many Iranians. Again it was Iranians that overthrew him.
It was much more complicated than US v democracy.

Pearl Harbor was not a limited strike, it was part of a full scale war and invasion of US and Allied territories.

Your hypothetical Russian action could be a limited strike though, if it did not intend to go beyond that. You are missing the point. I am simply saying limited strikes exist. They may be justified, but also may not be. They are not automatically good or bad.

But yes they would be within him their rights to take defensive actions against a limited strike.
I would expect them to do so.
Whether or not it would be escalation would depend on what exactly their response was.
And escalation is not inherently right or wrong either.

The U.S has been one of the biggest enemy of Democracy since the Spanish American War. It isn't the business of the U.S gov't.

The goal of the Japanese was reduction of American strike capability. What would be the goal of U.S strike?

Define what you mean by 'reaction'. If they did blow jets out of the sky, capture a pilot or two, I'm fairly certain you'd be calling for increased action. That's the point of 'limited strikes', it isn't retaliation, which is a false idea in the first place, but it's actively degrading the nation's right to protect itself.

It is wrong. It is the slaughter of human beings, the starvation of tens of thousands, for nothing that directly benefits you or me. Compared to the alternative of leaving them alone and allowing them their economy?

The US has not always supported democracy of course, sometimes we have, sometimes we have not. Nobody is saying the US is perfect.
But in 1953 we were not opposing democracy. Nor supporting it.

And a major attack as a part of a full scale war is not a limited strike.
This is not that hard to understand. A limited strike is deliberately intended to have very limited goals.
A massive strike on as a prelude to an all out assault is not limited.

Again a limited strike is not necessarily good nor evil.
The goal of a limited strike can vary, but if one was launched here, it would be to deter future attacks by Iran.

And they would obviously be able to shoot at someone bombing them.

Again that would be an expected response that would be taken into consideration if animated strike were to happen. You do remember we did one in Syria right?

A limited strike does not mean thousands starve, it is possible no one even dies.

But we did not actually even launch a limited kinetic strike here, we used a cyber attack instead, which was the better option.

[Peshma]

The U.S has been one of the biggest enemy of Democracy since the Spanish American War. It isn't the business of the U.S gov't.

The goal of the Japanese was reduction of American strike capability. What would be the goal of U.S strike?

Define what you mean by 'reaction'. If they did blow jets out of the sky, capture a pilot or two, I'm fairly certain you'd be calling for increased action. That's the point of 'limited strikes', it isn't retaliation, which is a false idea in the first place, but it's actively degrading the nation's right to protect itself.

It is wrong. It is the slaughter of human beings, the starvation of tens of thousands, for nothing that directly benefits you or me. Compared to the alternative of leaving them alone and allowing them their economy?

The US has not always supported democracy of course, sometimes we have, sometimes we have not. Nobody is saying the US is perfect.
But in 1953 we were not opposing democracy. Nor supporting it.

And a major attack as a part of a full scale war is not a limited strike.
This is not that hard to understand. A limited strike is deliberately intended to have very limited goals.
A massive strike on as a prelude to an all out assault is not limited.

Again a limited strike is not necessarily good nor evil.
The goal of a limited strike can vary, but if one was launched here, it would be to deter future attacks by Iran.

And they would obviously be able to shoot at someone bombing them.

Again that would be an expected response that would be taken into consideration if animated strike were to happen. You do remember we did one in Syria right?

A limited strike does not mean thousands starve, it is possible no one even dies.

But we did not actually even launch a limited kinetic strike here, we used a cyber attack instead, which was the better option.

how about instead of terrorizing a small, regional power we've been terrorizing for decades, and, like, I dunno, go away?