We all know if you want a country to have peaceful intentions, then you should repeatedly bomb them and invade them. Surely an Iranian citizen will love the countries that destroyed their homes, workplaces, economy and future, and they will never hold a grudge! That's why Middle Eastern conflicts are resolved quickly with no bad blood whatsoever!

Worked for Japan. Germany too. And Italy.

Agree. Agree. There is no good solution. You either go scorched earth and create the next generation of nut bag Islamists or you let them have a nuke and suffer the consequences of having a terrorist group with a nuclear weapon.

Neither are very good outcomes.

Then why is Trump begging to negotiate with these "terrorists"?

JCPOA wasn't perfect, but it didn't cost tax payers $2 billion per day, it didn't kill thousands of civilians, it didn't destroy a massive chunk of the world's petroleum infrastructure, it didn't hand the Iranians billions of dollars in tolls to control international waters, it didn't cost us about 2 dozen aircraft and the lives of 13 service members and injure hundreds more (probably thousands actually), and it didn't tank the stock market. But hey this is the price we pay for electing someone to be Israel's lapdog!

And I hate to break it to you, but there is no way to prevent a country from getting nukes. The tech is too easy and too widespread. Pakistan did it as an extremely impoverished country decades ago. Not to mention how easy it would be to just buy a few from North Korea. It will happen eventually, there needs to be a plan that ensures peace and stability in the Middle East, because letting Israel run the show and massacre civilians isn't sustainable.

The trouble is that it’s way easier and less war crimey to say that than it is to actually do that.

How about Korea? How about Vietnam? How about Afghanistan? How about Iraq? Got any examples from the last 80 years? Or are you just adding nothing to the discussion with irrelevant examples that have little bearing on the present situation?

Was that a bad thing? Do you think the vast majority of the Venezuelan people support Trumps actions because, it sounds like it couldn't have gotten much worse.

https://apnews.com/article/venezuela...m_medium=share

For those to lazy/prejudiced to read the article....“This increase, as we have indicated, will be a responsible increase,” Rodríguez said. “Likewise in the near future, as Venezuela enjoys more resources that allow for the sustainability of salary improvements and workers’ income, we will continue moving forward on this path.”

Many public sector workers survive on roughly $160 per month, while the average private sector employee earned about $237 last year. Venezuela’s monthly minimum wage of 130 bolivars, or $0.27, has not increased since 2022, putting it well below the United Nations’ measure of extreme poverty of $3 a day."

"The International Monetary Fund estimates Venezuela’s inflation rate is a staggering 682%, the highest of any country for which it has data. The country’s central bank last month released inflation figures for the first time since November 2024, showing the annual rate in 2025 soared to 475% from 48% the year before."

https://bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-46999668

Ukraine isn't the main topic here, but since you brought up spending, it's worth noting the irony: the resources being poured into the current conflict with Iran could have been far better invested in supporting Ukraine against Russia. That would have actually served clear U.S. strategic interests, weakening the one rival that competed with the U.S. for global supremacy for 50 years, generating real soft power in Eastern Europe, and accelerating the degradation of Russian military and economic capacity... which, by the way, is already happening after their "3-day special military operation" stretched into years. And let's not forget, Russia and Iran aren't separate problems. They are allied, sharing intelligence and military technology. Weakening one weakens the other. Instead, this approach left both standing while opening a new front against an adversary that the administration's own intelligence assessments did not consider an imminent threat. Russia, on the other hand, is not a potential threat. It is actively invading a European country right now.

But here's the paradox: the argument seems to be that this sky-is-falling mentality, the idea that an imminent Iranian attack was so inevitable and catastrophic that it justified anything, excuses everything. Save it from what, exactly? The U.S. entered this era as the undisputed superpower, largest economy, strongest military, unmatched global influence, allies who showed up unconditionally. The only legitimate concern on the table was the national debt, which, by the way, is another broken promise, partly thanks to the very war being celebrated here. There was no burning house to rescue. The paradox is that the very decline being used to justify these decisions... is being caused by these decisions. And it gets worse: this wasn't even a genuine sky-is-falling moment. The administration's own assessments said Iran was not an imminent threat. So the house wasn't burning. They knew it wasn't burning. And they lit it anyway.

And even on its own terms the argument fails. If the threat was so existential that it justified all of this, where's the result? Iran's nuclear program wasn't obliterated. The threat remains. So you paid the full price in treasure, alliances and credibility, and the problem is still there.

And here's what makes it even more contradictory: acting recklessly without measuring consequences is what you'd expect from an actor with nothing to lose. The U.S. is the opposite, precisely because of everything it has built, it has more to lose than anyone. That's not a reason for timidity, but it is absolutely a reason for strategic thinking over impulsive action.

As you said yourself, anyone with a modicum of common sense can see it. "No more wars" was the pitch. The result so far has been a new war, trade wars, diplomatic chaos, weakened alliances, a brain drain accelerated by an open war against academic institutions and research centers, and zero clear strategic wins anyone has been able to articulate here. I'll leave the floor open, if there are concrete positive outcomes from this approach, I'd genuinely like to hear them laid out.

Maybe governing the most powerful country in history requires a bit more brain than balls.

Not really. You see talking heads say things about war crimes without really even understanding what constitutes a war crime under LOAC.


But it would cost so much and take forever.

That’s why I said it’s a dichotomy. You either obliterate any semblance of the current rule or you let them have nukes. Personally, I think the nukes part is worse. But that’s just like my opinion.

The lesson appears clear. In order to WIN Wars you do need a full fledged effort without quislings backstabbing you.

That's not a dichotomy. It's a false dichotomy

True. Their one plan was for the Iranian people to rise up after the bombs started dropping. They had no plan B. It’s abundantly clear they have no idea how to extricate ourselves from this mess.

It is if you believe a country run by terrorists would legitimately give up their desire to have them, yes.

Well when you start obliterating countries run by bad actors because they could potentially be developing nukes you kind of show the world the importance of having nukes to keep from being obliterated. Every one of these strikes breeds new terrorists everyday. There is more than one dichotomy at play here, especially when you consider we are the only country that has ever used nuclear weapons against another country.

I recently read a piece in Foreign Affairs about what a peace agreement with Iran would look like.
It naturally had some comments on the 2015 JCPOA.

The author essentially stated that for some factions of American political actors, and the administration that came to power in 2017, there wasn't (and isn't) much that Iran can do.
Giving up 98% of their enriched uranium.Destroying most of their centrifuges. Complying with inspections. Etc.
Wasn't enough.
Negotiating with people whom will not take "yes" for an answer is an impossibility.

in short, complying with the agreement which achieved the goals that were stated in last years 12 day war and have belatedly surfaced in the current war was and is not enough for some in both America and Israel.

JCPOA wasn't a pipe dream. It likely achieved as good an outcome as reasonable people could expect. No nuclear weapons or enrichment for 10 years. A chance for Iran to rejoin the international community, which would be the basis of any lasting peace.
(as a side note, the failure of Russia to integrate into the world order is a major reason why Russia is at war in Ukraine. The achievement of China being integrated into the world's rules based order is a major reason why China ISN'T at war with us or its neighbors)

Your post essentially states that Iran can never be allowed to say "yes".

Sounds like you're talking about Israel, since they have been the primary destabilizing agent in the Middle East for the last 20 years

No, my post says that Iranian regime will never give up its nuclear ambitions. The only thing that negotiating with them does is allow them more time to do the inevitable.

They have no desire to join a world that they largely detest.

Hmm I wonder how Iran gained its nuclear expertise to begin with:

"Iran's nuclear ambitions began under the rule of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, with support from the United States and Western Europe. In 1957, Iran and the US signed a civil nuclear cooperation agreement as part of President Dwight Eisenhower's "Atoms for Peace" program. This led to the construction of Iran's first nuclear research facility at Tehran. In November 1967, the Tehran Research Reactor (TRR) went critical – a 5 megawatt (thermal) light-water reactor, which initially ran on highly enriched uranium (HEU) fuel at 93% U-235, provided by the US."

Why is the current regime so hostile to America? Oh right, because America enabled political terrorism by the Shah's secret police:

"According to a declassified CIA memo citing a classified U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee report, the CIA played a significant role in establishing SAVAK, providing both funding and training.[7] The organization became notorious for its extensive surveillance, repression, and torture of political dissidents. The Shah used SAVAK to arrest, imprison, exile, and torture his opponents, leading to widespread public resentment."

And how do we fix the past mistakes of American intervention?

More intervention of course! More regime change! It will definitely work this time. We need to go to war in the middle east because of the threat of WMDs. It'll go great

If so, success in that regard will definitely assure their goal. Because whatever world they may exist in, won’t be this one.

Yeah, can’t uncork that bottle. All you can do is remove desire of the bottle.

Remind me again, what is the definition of insanity?

I think it’s thinking Iran armed with a nuclear weapon is a good idea.

I'll help you out. It's doing the same thing over and over again while expecting a different result.

The current regime is a product of US interventionism.

You are saying the only solution to US interventionism is more US interventionism.

Doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

If anything, a nuclear armed Iran would at least act as a deterrence on the unchecked terrorism of the Israeli state

Then why do Paki’s extend us such great favor? No, Iran’s caliphate seeks glory through vengeance of supernatural, supreme guidance. Correct in that we naturally oppose such a vision.

Very well said.

.


It’s staggering how many conspiracy nutjobs have congregated in this thread.

It’s like a lounge for anti semitic pilots to blow their dog whistles.


.

Pakis? Do better dude.

Being against genocide is not anti semitic.

I actually have jewish family. Criticism and skepticism of the Israeli government is not inherently antisemitic despite how often they try to use that as a shield against accountability.

I'm surprised by how few can recognize that

[mod edit]

Project much? Who’s the nut job?

Go ahead, show your proof….. your claim is so ridiculous no one will believe it without proof.



.

If you have a point, try to do a better job of stating it.



.

Side you're on? You sound like you are Iran's side.

I’m on the side of America first, isolationism, and no more new wars. You know, the very tenet he ran on.


He lied. And here we are.


Can’t wait to see the inflation reports and oil prices going forward. At some point, even his most ardent supporters are going to face reality and realize that Trump was the direct cause of their increased financial woes this year.

Come on, all blog bowls are overflowing with nutters, bigots, bozos and chicken littles:)

What culture hasn’t some predominant faith bias? The difference lies in Iran’s hardline cleric interpretations and punishment for indiscriminate charges of heresy. Iow, bad bruhs forever in the terror export, extortion business. Something of a problem where it collides with today’s progressive norms and commitment to secular justice. Measure America’s achievement by impact of massive global humanitarian aid, charity, philanthropy, still champ by a wide margin. The last thing anyone here wants is yet another, oceans away, quagmire. But like each of two near peer superpowers, the US will absolutely not hesitate to authorize mass destruction in order to protect essential business interests. Which is no guess on my part. Truman was the first atomic button man. Long odds there’ll never be another.

Ample evidence is available on google in credible publications. Mods already deleted the text you quoted, so it cant be discussed here.

Sounds like you're on Israel's side, not America's

Are we still on Ukraines side?

Don't know as much about this and not trying to stir the pot, but a quick search pulls up https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_support_for_Hamas. Not advocating for or against, but interesting there's a Wiki about it.