You dumb nigger I already said no American feet on the ground. Stop comparing strategic bombings with a sustained campaign
Swear to God as soon as you faggots hear the word Iran you automatically bend over to take it from the Ayatollah because of your reflexive contrarianism towards anything that might benefit Israel. Iranian proxies are laundering money for the cartel, smuggling drugs into America, have actively killed hundreds of American active serving soldiers and civilians, and are shooting missiles at US flagged ships right now.
Despite being patriots you're completely fine with this because taking action against this country that refers to your country as the Great Satan and vows to destroy it means that somehow the kikes win.
If you think like the post that I'm quoting, you're an active cuckold who is fine with America continually suffering from Iranian activity. You don't care about America and just want to stand by some imaginary principles while it's being raped.
Uh... allow me to play devil's advocate here. At least to a certain extent.
You are correct in your assertion that the modern-day Islamic Republic of Iran is an active threat to the USA, that the Ayatollah and the Revolutionary Guard actively espouse rhetoric that refers to the USA as the Great Satan (among other such things), and that
something needs to be done. There's one big problem I see with the discourse surrounding Iran more generally: the modern-day Islamic Republic of Iran was unintentionally created by the USA thanks to foreign intervention in the first place.
Cold war power politics intersected with oil in the 1950s when Mossadegh came to power and the Shah fled Iran for the first time. It was the CIA that led a coup against him once Mossadegh talked about nationalising Iran's oil industry and reinstalled the Shah back to his full power. If there was ever a moment in time where the thread of prophecy was irrevocably severed, I'd say this was the moment and the USA sealed its fate going forward.
Keep in mind the Pahlavi dynasty overthrew the Qajars with substantial aid from the British during the interwar period. The Pahlavi dynasty was already known to be a puppet regime for foreign powers, and the USA actively staging a coup in Iran to overthrow a democratically elected leader to
reinstall the head of a puppet regime left a sour taste in many an Iranian's mouths. The Shah only became more repressive and dictatorial from that point forward, with SAVAK actively being used to track down and quash even the slightest traces of dissent.
Imam Khomeini is many things, and this is neither the time nor the place to discuss his broader legacy (a largely negative one, I would admit), but he was easily able to ascend to power and establish the Islamic Republic
because the people were fucking sick of foreign powers meddling in their nation's affairs. Obviously, the apparatuses for domestic repression never went away once Imam Khomeini took power; SAVAK simply got rebranded as VEVAK and the only thing of substance that changed was that the government went from being an autocratic secular hellhole into an autocratic Shi'a Muslim hellhole that LARPs as if it's a republic.
Now, this is the part I feel you will exhibit some extreme vitriol toward me, but I wholeheartedly believe that of all the Muslim theocracies on the world today, the Iranians are
not the ones who deserve our scorn.
My personal hatred goes toward the Arab Gulf kingdoms like the KSA, Qatar, Bahrain, the UAE, and Kuwait with extra emphasis placed upon the KSA in particular. Until Mohammed bin Salman became the de facto ruler of the KSA, that country was effectively responsible for spearheading the rise of jihadi movements and hardline madrasas to the rest of the wider Dar al-Islam.
Madrasas funded by Saudi blood money were what led to the rise of jihadi groups like the Mujahideen, the Taliban, al-Qaeda, among others. Saudi blood money actively funded Hamas until the Abraham Accords under Trump's tenure came into play, then Iran started filling the void. Jihadi groups funded by Saudi blood money exist in almost every corner of the modern Arab world from, Libya to Iraq, because the KSA can't afford to have stable neighbours that
aren't repressed theocratic monarchies. I also have a
ton of venom to spare for Zia-ul-Haqq's tenure as military dictator of Pakistan, since he actually
deepened ties with the KSA who helped fund madrasas that aligned with Zia-ul-Haqq's own hardline interpretation of Islam. It was under Zia's tenure, funded by Saudi blood money and enabled by Americans who wanted to counteract the Soviets in Afghanistan, that Pakistan went from a nascent liberal democracy under Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto's tenure to a military dictatorship where even in the post-Zia republic period, the Pakistani military and ISI have disproportionate influence on domestic and international politics.
Controversial take here, but I can't help but feel like if we approached Iran for negotiations instead of the KSA, the world would be a marginally better place. If nothing else, the Iranian regime was (until Mohammed bin Salman came to power), comparatively more progressive than the KSA ever was. Women were allowed to drive long before they were ever allowed to in the KSA. Imam Khomeini spearheaded widespread education reforms that drastically improved female literacy rates. Iran's able to sustain a military industrial complex of its own with rough parity to Turkey's own military capability, whereas the KSA's own army consists of migrants drawn to the Arabian Peninsula by oil money. Even under Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto's tenure, and his professed brotherhood to the Chinese, Pakistan was a nominal ally of the USA post Sino-Soviet split and Nixon's visit to Beijing in 1972. Iran and Pakistan are also neighbours, and it would've been tactically advantageous to retain Iran
and Pakistan as nominal allies.
How easy would negotiations with the Ayatollah have been? Fuck if I know, but the fact still remains that the Islamic Republic was a demon of America's own making and we just allowed it to fester instead of actually trying to address what we did in the first goddamn place. You can argue the efficacy or strategic value of controlled strikes deep into the heart of a sovereign nation all you want, but it honestly feels like a stopgap at best and dousing kerosene on top of a raging trashfire at worst.
Also before you, or anyone else, calls me a brainwashed faggot who sucks Iranian cock and consumes IRGC propaganda all day erryday, I'd like to get ahead and say that I'm not sympathetic toward the modern Islamic Republic because I think the Ayatollah did nothing wrong. TMI incoming, but I
do have close friends IRL whose grandmothers had horrible encounters with SAVAK under the Shah, and whose mothers have equally horrible things to say about the IRGC and their modesty police. There's definitely a ton of shit fundamentally wrong with the Islamic Republic of Iran that need to be addressed.
Having said that: I'm sympathetic largely because my lifelong autistic love of Persianate culture and language is rendered fucking
useless in a modern context because who the fuck would
want to learn Farsi instead of something more "productive" like Arabic or Chinese? There's tons of cool ass shit buried within the walls of modern-day Iran that would just ultimately get lost if controlled strikes speareheaded by a joint US-Israeli coalition spiral into an all-out war. Does any of that matter if it's for the "greater good" and it means the toppling of a regime that legitimately caused tons of suffering? Fuck if I'd know. I'm just a terminally online Amerifat who's tired of wars in the Middle East and just wants us to get the fuck out of there.
