I have already said in a previous post that the Ayatollah was a merkin.
However has the USA not learned from IRAQ, etc that going in without a plan, killing the boss and wishing the 92,000,000 Iranians the best will only lead to civil war ? Or with Afghanistan, in 2026 the Taliban are again the governing authority, heroin production remains entrenched al‑Qaeda–linked actors still find space to operate and they treat women like goats. With IRAQ, it caused so much unrest and a black hole of power that it assisted in the rise of ISIS. Those pricks are STILL about.
So we can talk about the silver lining version of this war, but history suggests that it will not end well. Hey, maybe a civil war in Iran suits Israel just fine right now.
Yep.
Please name a country in the Middle East where US military action has left them better off.
The only one I can think of is Bahrain, stopping Saddam in Gulf War PT1.
The same old tropes were used to beat down opposition to Gulf War PT2, invading Iraq, WMD's were the reason they went in, and they no longer existed. Then it was all about Saddam, I mean yeah there weren't no nukes, but hey Saddam's a bad guy and we f**ked him up, so you know, what are ya, a Saddam lover or something?
20 plus years later, over a million dead, and it's still a shit fight, Iraqi's for the most part are worse off.
I think people in the west overestimate the nature of the resistance to the regime in Iran, whilst folks are dancing in the streets, other folks are mourning the losses, this is not gonna be some fairy tale of bringing democracy to the long suffering people, and if I had to guess, I'd bet it has f**k all to do with it.
It's about destabilising the country, weakening it so as it no longer poses a real threat, the only saving grace I believe is that Trump will not put boots on the ground, unless there is some form of unconditioal surrender by the Iranians.
So most likely it will end in a very bloody civil war, or the status quo remains, just with Iran very much weakened from a military perspective.