War with Iran Part II

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would anyone agree that Iran get nuclear weapons

It’s a farce. They don’t get nuclear weapons. They have enriched uranium and was just about to agree to not enrich it further in Feb 27.

Why would a country that has so much oil ever need uranium unless it's to build a nuclear weapon how can anybody say oh yeah sure you can enrich for uranium in an oil-rich country it's ridiculous no one should be fooled and in fact this is proof that they never stopped their nuclear program and should be sanctioned and removed from the planet

Why would a country that supposedly has such a great economic and diplomatic relationship with China need nukes when they could be working with China on developing renewables?
Iran gets 2800+ hours of sunlight per year across most of its territories. The central plateau, Yazd, Kerman, Isfahan has world class solar irradiance values. Some of the best on the planet. And the Binalud and Manjil corridors have some of the strongest onshore wind resources in the entire Middle East. Iran could be a renewable energy powerhouse.

China has partnered with Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, UAE and other countries to build megascale renewable energy projects.

The catch is that China won't invest, because of sanctions. And the sanctions are there because nobody believes Iran is pursuing nuclear for energy alone. Iran needs to drop that pursuit. Bottom line. Their lives will be so much better if they do.

You're describing an ideal world where Israel isn't acting like a terrorist state. Iran wants nuclear weapons to defend against Israel, and given what occurred this year, I'd say they've been proven right. Which is extremely sad, because your ideal solution cannot happen.

You're describing a world where Iran has no agency, no choices, no alternatives, and where its only possible path is to pursue nuclear weapons “to defend itself from Israel.” But that framing ignores the choices Iran has made for decades.

If nuclear pursuit were simply a reaction to Israeli aggression, you’d expect Israel’s immediate neighbors: Egypt, Jordan, others who actually fought wars with Israel to be racing for nukes. They aren’t. They also aren’t chanting “Death to Israel” at every state function. Yet they were the ones who experienced direct conflict with Israel in the 1950s, 60s, and 70s.

Iran, by contrast, had no wars with Israel, no Israeli attacks on its territory, and in fact maintained cooperative ties with Israel before 1979. The first Israeli covert actions against Iran didn’t occur until decades later in the 2010s, long after Iran had already spent years funding terrorist groups that attacked Israel. And from the moment the Islamic Republic was founded, its leadership adopted “Death to Israel” as a core ideological slogan.

That wasn’t a reaction to Israeli military behavior. It was an ideological choice. It was core choice for their revolution's identity. The new regime framed Israel as illegitimate, as a Western colonial project, and as something that should not exist in the region. That ideological posture shaped everything that followed.

None of this excuses Israeli policies you find objectionable. I and many others find Israeli policies objectionable as well, I've posted numerous times here to criticize the occupation, the treatment of Palestinians, and the conduct of the IDF. Those criticisms stand on their own.

But it’s also not accurate to portray Iran as a passive victim with no alternatives but to “stand up to terrorist Israel.”

Iran made strategic decisions: supporting armed proxies, rejecting diplomatic normalization, and defining its very identity through opposition to Israel, while other regional states chose de‑escalation and coexistence. The current conflict dynamic didn’t happen in a vacuum, and it wasn’t inevitable.

If we’re going to call out harmful behavior, it has to be applied consistently. Israel has done things worth condemning. But Iran has also made choices that escalated tensions rather than reduced them. Both realities can be true at the same time.

An awful lot of blather to say, essentially, we gave them a chance to do exactly what we told them to do, but they chose self-determination instead.

As always, the choice of one is no choice.

You also cited the apparent decision of Egypt and Jordan not to pursue nuclear weapons despite prior conflicts with Israel as evidence that there does exist, in fact, a peaceful path to coexistence with Israel. Aside from the fact that the essence of your argument is delusional, deceptive, or both, wagging your finger at Iran for refusing to follow the lead of two subservient lap dogs into that hegemonic trap is kinda comical.

You’re calling it "self‑determination," but Iran’s choices weren’t forced on them by Israel or anyone else. They were ideological decisions made in 1979, long before any Israeli covert activity and long before Iran began funding armed groups across the region. And to call it "anti-hegemonic" is quite ironic given Iran has been aggressively trying to project power beyond its own border and establish its own hegemony in in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and elsewhere across the region.

And dismissing Egypt and Jordan as "lap dogs" is just a cheap, lame way to avoid the obvious: those countries actually fought wars with Israel, lost territory, and still chose diplomacy over nuclear escalation. They had far more reason to pursue nukes than Iran ever did, and yet they didn’t. That’s not subservience. That’s strategy.

You don’t have to defend Israel to acknowledge that Iran made its own escalatory choices. Pretending Iran had "no choice" is just a lame, pathetic, and frankly unacceptable way of absolving them of their own responsibility in all of this. Again, the reality is simple: both states have done harmful things, and both have agency. That's fact. That's history. I've consistently been honest enough to acknowledge that, far from "delusional and dishonest." You on the other hand have your own dishonest, delusional denial about Iran's part in all of it on display for all of us here to see.

Delusional Pro-Iran "we dindu nuffin, those Jew boys just rolled up on us and started shooting" guy should keep those comments to internal Fars News Agency because that narrative just doesn't sell outside of internal Iranian propaganda channels - because those of us out here in the rest of the world know too much about the history and realities of Iran's actions.

The only people that support this war are trumps cultists and the Israeli government. You seem kind of divorced from reality.

DP. Are you really this dense? You don't have to "support this war" to know very well that the Iranian regime is a terrorist state that funds terrorist proxies across the ME. Those are facts. The PP very clearly stated that Israel has plenty to account for too, but your insistence on painting Iran as some kind of victim here just makes you look ridiculous.

Exactly. I don't support Trump, and I don't support Netanyahu, I don't support American neocons who have been itching to bomb Iran for years, I don't support Jewish supremacists and Zionists, but that said you'd have to be a total ignoramus of history or in complete delusional denial to think Iran was a totally innocent victim that never did anything wrong here.

NP here:

Curious if you played Risk as a kid?

For real. That is a game where it’s one country vs another without regard for human life.

We not only killed the new Alltollah’s Dad but also his Mother and his WIFE.

We not only destroyed Iran’s navy but also killed 19 years olds who just the day before visited the Taj Mahal.

We not only killed military targets but also 200 of their children.

We supplied weapons to Israel who just committed 10/7/23 on 4/8/26 without anyone in the US blinking an eye.

This is against my moral code.

I really could care less if “Iran” is “innocent” or “guilty” I just want my tax dollars going towards education and healthcare in the US and not killing human beings.

I’m not at all religious but if any public figure has said anything I can relate to recently it’s Pope Leo.

DP. It's just astounding how you continue to humanize the Iranian regime, as if they're somehow moral or empathetic beings. They slaughtered thousands of their own people, but you think we should feel sorry for the new ayatollah because his "dad," mother, and wife were killed? Sorry, no. The Iranian regime recently hanged three of their citizens after torturing them into "confessing" something or other. HANGINGS.

They regularly execute their own people. Women are still murdered there by stoning. This is a barbaric society, and there is no ambiguity there.

Your "moral code" doesn't interest me in the least, especially when you are selectively outraged about certain atrocities but not about others.

Do you want to go to war with Saudi too, bc they also do those things. Or are you just selectively outraged by Iran?

Yes, let’s go to war against every country that executes its own citizens. They deserve to have their schools bombed, it's their fault for executing their own citizens. I don't care about your "moral code".

Or the US could just mind its own goddamn business and focus on improving its internal infrastructure and standard of living, rather than bombing one country after another. What a thought!

+100

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would anyone agree that Iran get nuclear weapons

It’s a farce. They don’t get nuclear weapons. They have enriched uranium and was just about to agree to not enrich it further in Feb 27.

Why would a country that has so much oil ever need uranium unless it's to build a nuclear weapon how can anybody say oh yeah sure you can enrich for uranium in an oil-rich country it's ridiculous no one should be fooled and in fact this is proof that they never stopped their nuclear program and should be sanctioned and removed from the planet

Why would a country that supposedly has such a great economic and diplomatic relationship with China need nukes when they could be working with China on developing renewables?
Iran gets 2800+ hours of sunlight per year across most of its territories. The central plateau, Yazd, Kerman, Isfahan has world class solar irradiance values. Some of the best on the planet. And the Binalud and Manjil corridors have some of the strongest onshore wind resources in the entire Middle East. Iran could be a renewable energy powerhouse.

China has partnered with Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, UAE and other countries to build megascale renewable energy projects.

The catch is that China won't invest, because of sanctions. And the sanctions are there because nobody believes Iran is pursuing nuclear for energy alone. Iran needs to drop that pursuit. Bottom line. Their lives will be so much better if they do.

You're describing an ideal world where Israel isn't acting like a terrorist state. Iran wants nuclear weapons to defend against Israel, and given what occurred this year, I'd say they've been proven right. Which is extremely sad, because your ideal solution cannot happen.

You're describing a world where Iran has no agency, no choices, no alternatives, and where its only possible path is to pursue nuclear weapons “to defend itself from Israel.” But that framing ignores the choices Iran has made for decades.

If nuclear pursuit were simply a reaction to Israeli aggression, you’d expect Israel’s immediate neighbors: Egypt, Jordan, others who actually fought wars with Israel to be racing for nukes. They aren’t. They also aren’t chanting “Death to Israel” at every state function. Yet they were the ones who experienced direct conflict with Israel in the 1950s, 60s, and 70s.

Iran, by contrast, had no wars with Israel, no Israeli attacks on its territory, and in fact maintained cooperative ties with Israel before 1979. The first Israeli covert actions against Iran didn’t occur until decades later in the 2010s, long after Iran had already spent years funding terrorist groups that attacked Israel. And from the moment the Islamic Republic was founded, its leadership adopted “Death to Israel” as a core ideological slogan.

That wasn’t a reaction to Israeli military behavior. It was an ideological choice. It was core choice for their revolution's identity. The new regime framed Israel as illegitimate, as a Western colonial project, and as something that should not exist in the region. That ideological posture shaped everything that followed.

None of this excuses Israeli policies you find objectionable. I and many others find Israeli policies objectionable as well, I've posted numerous times here to criticize the occupation, the treatment of Palestinians, and the conduct of the IDF. Those criticisms stand on their own.

But it’s also not accurate to portray Iran as a passive victim with no alternatives but to “stand up to terrorist Israel.”

Iran made strategic decisions: supporting armed proxies, rejecting diplomatic normalization, and defining its very identity through opposition to Israel, while other regional states chose de‑escalation and coexistence. The current conflict dynamic didn’t happen in a vacuum, and it wasn’t inevitable.

If we’re going to call out harmful behavior, it has to be applied consistently. Israel has done things worth condemning. But Iran has also made choices that escalated tensions rather than reduced them. Both realities can be true at the same time.

An awful lot of blather to say, essentially, we gave them a chance to do exactly what we told them to do, but they chose self-determination instead.

As always, the choice of one is no choice.

You also cited the apparent decision of Egypt and Jordan not to pursue nuclear weapons despite prior conflicts with Israel as evidence that there does exist, in fact, a peaceful path to coexistence with Israel. Aside from the fact that the essence of your argument is delusional, deceptive, or both, wagging your finger at Iran for refusing to follow the lead of two subservient lap dogs into that hegemonic trap is kinda comical.

You’re calling it "self‑determination," but Iran’s choices weren’t forced on them by Israel or anyone else. They were ideological decisions made in 1979, long before any Israeli covert activity and long before Iran began funding armed groups across the region. And to call it "anti-hegemonic" is quite ironic given Iran has been aggressively trying to project power beyond its own border and establish its own hegemony in in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and elsewhere across the region.

And dismissing Egypt and Jordan as "lap dogs" is just a cheap, lame way to avoid the obvious: those countries actually fought wars with Israel, lost territory, and still chose diplomacy over nuclear escalation. They had far more reason to pursue nukes than Iran ever did, and yet they didn’t. That’s not subservience. That’s strategy.

You don’t have to defend Israel to acknowledge that Iran made its own escalatory choices. Pretending Iran had "no choice" is just a lame, pathetic, and frankly unacceptable way of absolving them of their own responsibility in all of this. Again, the reality is simple: both states have done harmful things, and both have agency. That's fact. That's history. I've consistently been honest enough to acknowledge that, far from "delusional and dishonest." You on the other hand have your own dishonest, delusional denial about Iran's part in all of it on display for all of us here to see.

Delusional Pro-Iran "we dindu nuffin, those Jew boys just rolled up on us and started shooting" guy should keep those comments to internal Fars News Agency because that narrative just doesn't sell outside of internal Iranian propaganda channels - because those of us out here in the rest of the world know too much about the history and realities of Iran's actions.

The only people that support this war are trumps cultists and the Israeli government. You seem kind of divorced from reality.

DP. Are you really this dense? You don't have to "support this war" to know very well that the Iranian regime is a terrorist state that funds terrorist proxies across the ME. Those are facts. The PP very clearly stated that Israel has plenty to account for too, but your insistence on painting Iran as some kind of victim here just makes you look ridiculous.

Exactly. I don't support Trump, and I don't support Netanyahu, I don't support American neocons who have been itching to bomb Iran for years, I don't support Jewish supremacists and Zionists, but that said you'd have to be a total ignoramus of history or in complete delusional denial to think Iran was a totally innocent victim that never did anything wrong here.

NP here:

Curious if you played Risk as a kid?

For real. That is a game where it’s one country vs another without regard for human life.

We not only killed the new Alltollah’s Dad but also his Mother and his WIFE.

We not only destroyed Iran’s navy but also killed 19 years olds who just the day before visited the Taj Mahal.

We not only killed military targets but also 200 of their children.

We supplied weapons to Israel who just committed 10/7/23 on 4/8/26 without anyone in the US blinking an eye.

This is against my moral code.

I really could care less if “Iran” is “innocent” or “guilty” I just want my tax dollars going towards education and healthcare in the US and not killing human beings.

I’m not at all religious but if any public figure has said anything I can relate to recently it’s Pope Leo.

DP. It's just astounding how you continue to humanize the Iranian regime, as if they're somehow moral or empathetic beings. They slaughtered thousands of their own people, but you think we should feel sorry for the new ayatollah because his "dad," mother, and wife were killed? Sorry, no. The Iranian regime recently hanged three of their citizens after torturing them into "confessing" something or other. HANGINGS.

They regularly execute their own people. Women are still murdered there by stoning. This is a barbaric society, and there is no ambiguity there.

Your "moral code" doesn't interest me in the least, especially when you are selectively outraged about certain atrocities but not about others.

We have already tried to fix other ME countries with sh*tty regimes and failed. Taliban is still in power. How much more US debt do we have to drive up starting new wars?? We are financially insolvent. We are cutting benefits like SNAP and healthcare for our own citizens to pay for a repeatedly failed war strategy thar has NEVER ended up improving anything in the ME at the expense of US lives, worsened ME stability and financial peril for our country. Just stop. When do US citizens finally, finally come first because that is what Trump promised and he lied.

[Anonymous]

The Most Dangerous Stage Begins Now
The Diary Of CEO podcast with Professor Robert Pape.

[Anonymous]

he Arab Word is Watching a Different War:

Three reasons why it has been difficult to understand the Arab position:

1 - The first is the Arab relationship with Iran. From the vantage point of Brussels or London, Iran presents itself as a resistance movement with a grievance against American hegemony and Israeli occupation, and this presentation maps comfortably onto familiar Western anticolonial frameworks.
What it does not map onto is the lived experience of Arab populations in Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen, Bahrain, Syria, and across the Gulf. In those countries, Iran's presence meant Hezbollah holding the Lebanese state hostage to Tehran's decisions, thirty-five armed factions in Iraq drawing salaries from Iranian funds channeled through the Iraqi national treasury, and Houthi commanders answering to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps while firing on Arab civilians from Yemeni soil. Freedom is not the word any serious Arab observer would use for what Iran brought.

Indeed, the Arab world's quarrel with Iran runs far deeper than American bases or Israeli airstrikes. What drives it is the systematic subversion of Arab sovereignty by a foreign power that uses the language of Islamic solidarity as cover for an imperial project conducted through proxies.

2 - The second dimension is the proxy question itself, where Western analysis fails most comprehensively. Iran goes far beyond supporting armed groups. Parallel state structures get built inside Arab countries, financial systems get captured, and political figures get installed who owe their existence and survival entirely to Tehran. The Iranians who have administered this project understand it as the export of a revolution, but what Arab populations have experienced is closer to a colonial occupation conducted through intermediaries, and as of now, they’re not mourning the Islamic Republic. But Westerners treat these proxy networks as instruments of legitimate resistance rather than as mechanisms of subjugation, they endorse an imperial project while believing themselves to be opposing one, and as a matter of fact, make themselves the legitimizing force behind Iran’s war against the Arab world.

3- The third dimension is the most counterintuitive for a Western audience, and it is the one most consequential for how the current war is understood and misunderstood. For Arab nationalists, including secular nationalists and even those with deep reservations about Israeli policy, Iran represents a greater and more immediate threat than Israel does.

This is a position that Western media are structurally ill-equipped to render intelligible, because Western discourse on the Middle East has been organized for decades around the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as the primary axis of regional injustice.

The result is that when Western governments and Western publics take strong positions against Israel’s actions against Iran’s operations, they believe themselves to be standing with the Arab world. In reality, they are advancing a position that the Arab world does not share and has not asked for, while ignoring the threat that Arab governments and Arab populations actually live with.

The rhetorical use of Israel as a perpetual alibi for Iranian aggression has been one of the Islamic Republic’s most durable tools, and Western opinion has served as the unwitting amplifier of that tool across the entire duration of the Islamic Republic’s existence.

[Anonymous]

hmm. Not sure Lebanon would agree with "For Arab nationalists, including secular nationalists and even those with deep reservations about Israeli policy, Iran represents a greater and more immediate threat than Israel does." as Israel continues to actively bomb them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would anyone agree that Iran get nuclear weapons

It’s a farce. They don’t get nuclear weapons. They have enriched uranium and was just about to agree to not enrich it further in Feb 27.

Why would a country that has so much oil ever need uranium unless it's to build a nuclear weapon how can anybody say oh yeah sure you can enrich for uranium in an oil-rich country it's ridiculous no one should be fooled and in fact this is proof that they never stopped their nuclear program and should be sanctioned and removed from the planet

Why would a country that supposedly has such a great economic and diplomatic relationship with China need nukes when they could be working with China on developing renewables?
Iran gets 2800+ hours of sunlight per year across most of its territories. The central plateau, Yazd, Kerman, Isfahan has world class solar irradiance values. Some of the best on the planet. And the Binalud and Manjil corridors have some of the strongest onshore wind resources in the entire Middle East. Iran could be a renewable energy powerhouse.

China has partnered with Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, UAE and other countries to build megascale renewable energy projects.

The catch is that China won't invest, because of sanctions. And the sanctions are there because nobody believes Iran is pursuing nuclear for energy alone. Iran needs to drop that pursuit. Bottom line. Their lives will be so much better if they do.

You're describing an ideal world where Israel isn't acting like a terrorist state. Iran wants nuclear weapons to defend against Israel, and given what occurred this year, I'd say they've been proven right. Which is extremely sad, because your ideal solution cannot happen.

You're describing a world where Iran has no agency, no choices, no alternatives, and where its only possible path is to pursue nuclear weapons “to defend itself from Israel.” But that framing ignores the choices Iran has made for decades.

If nuclear pursuit were simply a reaction to Israeli aggression, you’d expect Israel’s immediate neighbors: Egypt, Jordan, others who actually fought wars with Israel to be racing for nukes. They aren’t. They also aren’t chanting “Death to Israel” at every state function. Yet they were the ones who experienced direct conflict with Israel in the 1950s, 60s, and 70s.

Iran, by contrast, had no wars with Israel, no Israeli attacks on its territory, and in fact maintained cooperative ties with Israel before 1979. The first Israeli covert actions against Iran didn’t occur until decades later in the 2010s, long after Iran had already spent years funding terrorist groups that attacked Israel. And from the moment the Islamic Republic was founded, its leadership adopted “Death to Israel” as a core ideological slogan.

That wasn’t a reaction to Israeli military behavior. It was an ideological choice. It was core choice for their revolution's identity. The new regime framed Israel as illegitimate, as a Western colonial project, and as something that should not exist in the region. That ideological posture shaped everything that followed.

None of this excuses Israeli policies you find objectionable. I and many others find Israeli policies objectionable as well, I've posted numerous times here to criticize the occupation, the treatment of Palestinians, and the conduct of the IDF. Those criticisms stand on their own.

But it’s also not accurate to portray Iran as a passive victim with no alternatives but to “stand up to terrorist Israel.”

Iran made strategic decisions: supporting armed proxies, rejecting diplomatic normalization, and defining its very identity through opposition to Israel, while other regional states chose de‑escalation and coexistence. The current conflict dynamic didn’t happen in a vacuum, and it wasn’t inevitable.

If we’re going to call out harmful behavior, it has to be applied consistently. Israel has done things worth condemning. But Iran has also made choices that escalated tensions rather than reduced them. Both realities can be true at the same time.

An awful lot of blather to say, essentially, we gave them a chance to do exactly what we told them to do, but they chose self-determination instead.

As always, the choice of one is no choice.

You also cited the apparent decision of Egypt and Jordan not to pursue nuclear weapons despite prior conflicts with Israel as evidence that there does exist, in fact, a peaceful path to coexistence with Israel. Aside from the fact that the essence of your argument is delusional, deceptive, or both, wagging your finger at Iran for refusing to follow the lead of two subservient lap dogs into that hegemonic trap is kinda comical.

You’re calling it "self‑determination," but Iran’s choices weren’t forced on them by Israel or anyone else. They were ideological decisions made in 1979, long before any Israeli covert activity and long before Iran began funding armed groups across the region. And to call it "anti-hegemonic" is quite ironic given Iran has been aggressively trying to project power beyond its own border and establish its own hegemony in in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and elsewhere across the region.

And dismissing Egypt and Jordan as "lap dogs" is just a cheap, lame way to avoid the obvious: those countries actually fought wars with Israel, lost territory, and still chose diplomacy over nuclear escalation. They had far more reason to pursue nukes than Iran ever did, and yet they didn’t. That’s not subservience. That’s strategy.

You don’t have to defend Israel to acknowledge that Iran made its own escalatory choices. Pretending Iran had "no choice" is just a lame, pathetic, and frankly unacceptable way of absolving them of their own responsibility in all of this. Again, the reality is simple: both states have done harmful things, and both have agency. That's fact. That's history. I've consistently been honest enough to acknowledge that, far from "delusional and dishonest." You on the other hand have your own dishonest, delusional denial about Iran's part in all of it on display for all of us here to see.

Delusional Pro-Iran "we dindu nuffin, those Jew boys just rolled up on us and started shooting" guy should keep those comments to internal Fars News Agency because that narrative just doesn't sell outside of internal Iranian propaganda channels - because those of us out here in the rest of the world know too much about the history and realities of Iran's actions.

The only people that support this war are trumps cultists and the Israeli government. You seem kind of divorced from reality.

DP. Are you really this dense? You don't have to "support this war" to know very well that the Iranian regime is a terrorist state that funds terrorist proxies across the ME. Those are facts. The PP very clearly stated that Israel has plenty to account for too, but your insistence on painting Iran as some kind of victim here just makes you look ridiculous.

Exactly. I don't support Trump, and I don't support Netanyahu, I don't support American neocons who have been itching to bomb Iran for years, I don't support Jewish supremacists and Zionists, but that said you'd have to be a total ignoramus of history or in complete delusional denial to think Iran was a totally innocent victim that never did anything wrong here.

NP here:

Curious if you played Risk as a kid?

For real. That is a game where it’s one country vs another without regard for human life.

We not only killed the new Alltollah’s Dad but also his Mother and his WIFE.

We not only destroyed Iran’s navy but also killed 19 years olds who just the day before visited the Taj Mahal.

We not only killed military targets but also 200 of their children.

We supplied weapons to Israel who just committed 10/7/23 on 4/8/26 without anyone in the US blinking an eye.

This is against my moral code.

I really could care less if “Iran” is “innocent” or “guilty” I just want my tax dollars going towards education and healthcare in the US and not killing human beings.

I’m not at all religious but if any public figure has said anything I can relate to recently it’s Pope Leo.

DP. It's just astounding how you continue to humanize the Iranian regime, as if they're somehow moral or empathetic beings. They slaughtered thousands of their own people, but you think we should feel sorry for the new ayatollah because his "dad," mother, and wife were killed? Sorry, no. The Iranian regime recently hanged three of their citizens after torturing them into "confessing" something or other. HANGINGS.

They regularly execute their own people. Women are still murdered there by stoning. This is a barbaric society, and there is no ambiguity there.

Your "moral code" doesn't interest me in the least, especially when you are selectively outraged about certain atrocities but not about others.

New poster. While everything you say may be true, the US has done absolutely nothing to improve the lives of Iranian people. Less than nothing. If the goal was regime change: abject failure. If the goal was to nudge Iran into a world where stoning women is considered wrong: failure. But even if the goals were selfish and exclusively pro-US interest: complete failure.

How does this fit in your moral code? How does the fact that EVERYONE IS WORSE OFF NOW fit into your worldview. Everyone includes the US of course, but also all of our allies, also the populations in the world living at the edges, AND Iranian women! Everyone is in a much worse situation now - and they all hate the US, thank you very much.

We are not simpletons. Obama's administration were not idiots. Sometimes, oftentimes, you achieve much, much more with diplomacy than with a ridiculous, senseless, insanely expensive, world destabilizing show of force.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:he Arab Word is Watching a Different War:

Three reasons why it has been difficult to understand the Arab position:

1 - The first is the Arab relationship with Iran. From the vantage point of Brussels or London, Iran presents itself as a resistance movement with a grievance against American hegemony and Israeli occupation, and this presentation maps comfortably onto familiar Western anticolonial frameworks.
What it does not map onto is the lived experience of Arab populations in Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen, Bahrain, Syria, and across the Gulf. In those countries, Iran's presence meant Hezbollah holding the Lebanese state hostage to Tehran's decisions, thirty-five armed factions in Iraq drawing salaries from Iranian funds channeled through the Iraqi national treasury, and Houthi commanders answering to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps while firing on Arab civilians from Yemeni soil. Freedom is not the word any serious Arab observer would use for what Iran brought.

Indeed, the Arab world's quarrel with Iran runs far deeper than American bases or Israeli airstrikes. What drives it is the systematic subversion of Arab sovereignty by a foreign power that uses the language of Islamic solidarity as cover for an imperial project conducted through proxies.

2 - The second dimension is the proxy question itself, where Western analysis fails most comprehensively. Iran goes far beyond supporting armed groups. Parallel state structures get built inside Arab countries, financial systems get captured, and political figures get installed who owe their existence and survival entirely to Tehran. The Iranians who have administered this project understand it as the export of a revolution, but what Arab populations have experienced is closer to a colonial occupation conducted through intermediaries, and as of now, they’re not mourning the Islamic Republic. But Westerners treat these proxy networks as instruments of legitimate resistance rather than as mechanisms of subjugation, they endorse an imperial project while believing themselves to be opposing one, and as a matter of fact, make themselves the legitimizing force behind Iran’s war against the Arab world.

3- The third dimension is the most counterintuitive for a Western audience, and it is the one most consequential for how the current war is understood and misunderstood. For Arab nationalists, including secular nationalists and even those with deep reservations about Israeli policy, Iran represents a greater and more immediate threat than Israel does.

This is a position that Western media are structurally ill-equipped to render intelligible, because Western discourse on the Middle East has been organized for decades around the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as the primary axis of regional injustice.

The result is that when Western governments and Western publics take strong positions against Israel’s actions against Iran’s operations, they believe themselves to be standing with the Arab world. In reality, they are advancing a position that the Arab world does not share and has not asked for, while ignoring the threat that Arab governments and Arab populations actually live with.

The rhetorical use of Israel as a perpetual alibi for Iranian aggression has been one of the Islamic Republic’s most durable tools, and Western opinion has served as the unwitting amplifier of that tool across the entire duration of the Islamic Republic’s existence.

As an FYI, Nikki Haley is the Walter P. Stern Chair at the Hudson Institute, where this writer works. Significant funding to Hudson Institute comes from Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman and other defense contractors as well as various pro-Israel foundations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:he Arab Word is Watching a Different War:

Three reasons why it has been difficult to understand the Arab position:

1 - The first is the Arab relationship with Iran. From the vantage point of Brussels or London, Iran presents itself as a resistance movement with a grievance against American hegemony and Israeli occupation, and this presentation maps comfortably onto familiar Western anticolonial frameworks.
What it does not map onto is the lived experience of Arab populations in Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen, Bahrain, Syria, and across the Gulf. In those countries, Iran's presence meant Hezbollah holding the Lebanese state hostage to Tehran's decisions, thirty-five armed factions in Iraq drawing salaries from Iranian funds channeled through the Iraqi national treasury, and Houthi commanders answering to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps while firing on Arab civilians from Yemeni soil. Freedom is not the word any serious Arab observer would use for what Iran brought.

Indeed, the Arab world's quarrel with Iran runs far deeper than American bases or Israeli airstrikes. What drives it is the systematic subversion of Arab sovereignty by a foreign power that uses the language of Islamic solidarity as cover for an imperial project conducted through proxies.

2 - The second dimension is the proxy question itself, where Western analysis fails most comprehensively. Iran goes far beyond supporting armed groups. Parallel state structures get built inside Arab countries, financial systems get captured, and political figures get installed who owe their existence and survival entirely to Tehran. The Iranians who have administered this project understand it as the export of a revolution, but what Arab populations have experienced is closer to a colonial occupation conducted through intermediaries, and as of now, they’re not mourning the Islamic Republic. But Westerners treat these proxy networks as instruments of legitimate resistance rather than as mechanisms of subjugation, they endorse an imperial project while believing themselves to be opposing one, and as a matter of fact, make themselves the legitimizing force behind Iran’s war against the Arab world.

3- The third dimension is the most counterintuitive for a Western audience, and it is the one most consequential for how the current war is understood and misunderstood. For Arab nationalists, including secular nationalists and even those with deep reservations about Israeli policy, Iran represents a greater and more immediate threat than Israel does.

This is a position that Western media are structurally ill-equipped to render intelligible, because Western discourse on the Middle East has been organized for decades around the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as the primary axis of regional injustice.

The result is that when Western governments and Western publics take strong positions against Israel’s actions against Iran’s operations, they believe themselves to be standing with the Arab world. In reality, they are advancing a position that the Arab world does not share and has not asked for, while ignoring the threat that Arab governments and Arab populations actually live with.

The rhetorical use of Israel as a perpetual alibi for Iranian aggression has been one of the Islamic Republic’s most durable tools, and Western opinion has served as the unwitting amplifier of that tool across the entire duration of the Islamic Republic’s existence.

Excellent analysis. (which in no way justifies Israeli conduct but explains how the US left has been thoroughly duped and even willingly led into it through the exploitation of antisemitic tropes.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would anyone agree that Iran get nuclear weapons

It’s a farce. They don’t get nuclear weapons. They have enriched uranium and was just about to agree to not enrich it further in Feb 27.

Why would a country that has so much oil ever need uranium unless it's to build a nuclear weapon how can anybody say oh yeah sure you can enrich for uranium in an oil-rich country it's ridiculous no one should be fooled and in fact this is proof that they never stopped their nuclear program and should be sanctioned and removed from the planet

Why would a country that supposedly has such a great economic and diplomatic relationship with China need nukes when they could be working with China on developing renewables?
Iran gets 2800+ hours of sunlight per year across most of its territories. The central plateau, Yazd, Kerman, Isfahan has world class solar irradiance values. Some of the best on the planet. And the Binalud and Manjil corridors have some of the strongest onshore wind resources in the entire Middle East. Iran could be a renewable energy powerhouse.

China has partnered with Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, UAE and other countries to build megascale renewable energy projects.

The catch is that China won't invest, because of sanctions. And the sanctions are there because nobody believes Iran is pursuing nuclear for energy alone. Iran needs to drop that pursuit. Bottom line. Their lives will be so much better if they do.

You're describing an ideal world where Israel isn't acting like a terrorist state. Iran wants nuclear weapons to defend against Israel, and given what occurred this year, I'd say they've been proven right. Which is extremely sad, because your ideal solution cannot happen.

You're describing a world where Iran has no agency, no choices, no alternatives, and where its only possible path is to pursue nuclear weapons “to defend itself from Israel.” But that framing ignores the choices Iran has made for decades.

If nuclear pursuit were simply a reaction to Israeli aggression, you’d expect Israel’s immediate neighbors: Egypt, Jordan, others who actually fought wars with Israel to be racing for nukes. They aren’t. They also aren’t chanting “Death to Israel” at every state function. Yet they were the ones who experienced direct conflict with Israel in the 1950s, 60s, and 70s.

Iran, by contrast, had no wars with Israel, no Israeli attacks on its territory, and in fact maintained cooperative ties with Israel before 1979. The first Israeli covert actions against Iran didn’t occur until decades later in the 2010s, long after Iran had already spent years funding terrorist groups that attacked Israel. And from the moment the Islamic Republic was founded, its leadership adopted “Death to Israel” as a core ideological slogan.

That wasn’t a reaction to Israeli military behavior. It was an ideological choice. It was core choice for their revolution's identity. The new regime framed Israel as illegitimate, as a Western colonial project, and as something that should not exist in the region. That ideological posture shaped everything that followed.

None of this excuses Israeli policies you find objectionable. I and many others find Israeli policies objectionable as well, I've posted numerous times here to criticize the occupation, the treatment of Palestinians, and the conduct of the IDF. Those criticisms stand on their own.

But it’s also not accurate to portray Iran as a passive victim with no alternatives but to “stand up to terrorist Israel.”

Iran made strategic decisions: supporting armed proxies, rejecting diplomatic normalization, and defining its very identity through opposition to Israel, while other regional states chose de‑escalation and coexistence. The current conflict dynamic didn’t happen in a vacuum, and it wasn’t inevitable.

If we’re going to call out harmful behavior, it has to be applied consistently. Israel has done things worth condemning. But Iran has also made choices that escalated tensions rather than reduced them. Both realities can be true at the same time.

An awful lot of blather to say, essentially, we gave them a chance to do exactly what we told them to do, but they chose self-determination instead.

As always, the choice of one is no choice.

You also cited the apparent decision of Egypt and Jordan not to pursue nuclear weapons despite prior conflicts with Israel as evidence that there does exist, in fact, a peaceful path to coexistence with Israel. Aside from the fact that the essence of your argument is delusional, deceptive, or both, wagging your finger at Iran for refusing to follow the lead of two subservient lap dogs into that hegemonic trap is kinda comical.

You’re calling it "self‑determination," but Iran’s choices weren’t forced on them by Israel or anyone else. They were ideological decisions made in 1979, long before any Israeli covert activity and long before Iran began funding armed groups across the region. And to call it "anti-hegemonic" is quite ironic given Iran has been aggressively trying to project power beyond its own border and establish its own hegemony in in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and elsewhere across the region.

And dismissing Egypt and Jordan as "lap dogs" is just a cheap, lame way to avoid the obvious: those countries actually fought wars with Israel, lost territory, and still chose diplomacy over nuclear escalation. They had far more reason to pursue nukes than Iran ever did, and yet they didn’t. That’s not subservience. That’s strategy.

You don’t have to defend Israel to acknowledge that Iran made its own escalatory choices. Pretending Iran had "no choice" is just a lame, pathetic, and frankly unacceptable way of absolving them of their own responsibility in all of this. Again, the reality is simple: both states have done harmful things, and both have agency. That's fact. That's history. I've consistently been honest enough to acknowledge that, far from "delusional and dishonest." You on the other hand have your own dishonest, delusional denial about Iran's part in all of it on display for all of us here to see.

Delusional Pro-Iran "we dindu nuffin, those Jew boys just rolled up on us and started shooting" guy should keep those comments to internal Fars News Agency because that narrative just doesn't sell outside of internal Iranian propaganda channels - because those of us out here in the rest of the world know too much about the history and realities of Iran's actions.

The only people that support this war are trumps cultists and the Israeli government. You seem kind of divorced from reality.

DP. Are you really this dense? You don't have to "support this war" to know very well that the Iranian regime is a terrorist state that funds terrorist proxies across the ME. Those are facts. The PP very clearly stated that Israel has plenty to account for too, but your insistence on painting Iran as some kind of victim here just makes you look ridiculous.

Exactly. I don't support Trump, and I don't support Netanyahu, I don't support American neocons who have been itching to bomb Iran for years, I don't support Jewish supremacists and Zionists, but that said you'd have to be a total ignoramus of history or in complete delusional denial to think Iran was a totally innocent victim that never did anything wrong here.

NP here:

Curious if you played Risk as a kid?

For real. That is a game where it’s one country vs another without regard for human life.

We not only killed the new Alltollah’s Dad but also his Mother and his WIFE.

We not only destroyed Iran’s navy but also killed 19 years olds who just the day before visited the Taj Mahal.

We not only killed military targets but also 200 of their children.

We supplied weapons to Israel who just committed 10/7/23 on 4/8/26 without anyone in the US blinking an eye.

This is against my moral code.

I really could care less if “Iran” is “innocent” or “guilty” I just want my tax dollars going towards education and healthcare in the US and not killing human beings.

I’m not at all religious but if any public figure has said anything I can relate to recently it’s Pope Leo.

DP. It's just astounding how you continue to humanize the Iranian regime, as if they're somehow moral or empathetic beings. They slaughtered thousands of their own people, but you think we should feel sorry for the new ayatollah because his "dad," mother, and wife were killed? Sorry, no. The Iranian regime recently hanged three of their citizens after torturing them into "confessing" something or other. HANGINGS.

They regularly execute their own people. Women are still murdered there by stoning. This is a barbaric society, and there is no ambiguity there.

Your "moral code" doesn't interest me in the least, especially when you are selectively outraged about certain atrocities but not about others.

Do you want to go to war with Saudi too, bc they also do those things. Or are you just selectively outraged by Iran?

Yes, let’s go to war against every country that executes its own citizens. They deserve to have their schools bombed, it's their fault for executing their own citizens. I don't care about your "moral code".

Or the US could just mind its own goddamn business and focus on improving its internal infrastructure and standard of living, rather than bombing one country after another. What a thought!

+100

Someone should campaign on “No new foreign wars!” Oh, wait.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:he Arab Word is Watching a Different War:

Three reasons why it has been difficult to understand the Arab position:

1 - The first is the Arab relationship with Iran. From the vantage point of Brussels or London, Iran presents itself as a resistance movement with a grievance against American hegemony and Israeli occupation, and this presentation maps comfortably onto familiar Western anticolonial frameworks.
What it does not map onto is the lived experience of Arab populations in Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen, Bahrain, Syria, and across the Gulf. In those countries, Iran's presence meant Hezbollah holding the Lebanese state hostage to Tehran's decisions, thirty-five armed factions in Iraq drawing salaries from Iranian funds channeled through the Iraqi national treasury, and Houthi commanders answering to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps while firing on Arab civilians from Yemeni soil. Freedom is not the word any serious Arab observer would use for what Iran brought.

Indeed, the Arab world's quarrel with Iran runs far deeper than American bases or Israeli airstrikes. What drives it is the systematic subversion of Arab sovereignty by a foreign power that uses the language of Islamic solidarity as cover for an imperial project conducted through proxies.

2 - The second dimension is the proxy question itself, where Western analysis fails most comprehensively. Iran goes far beyond supporting armed groups. Parallel state structures get built inside Arab countries, financial systems get captured, and political figures get installed who owe their existence and survival entirely to Tehran. The Iranians who have administered this project understand it as the export of a revolution, but what Arab populations have experienced is closer to a colonial occupation conducted through intermediaries, and as of now, they’re not mourning the Islamic Republic. But Westerners treat these proxy networks as instruments of legitimate resistance rather than as mechanisms of subjugation, they endorse an imperial project while believing themselves to be opposing one, and as a matter of fact, make themselves the legitimizing force behind Iran’s war against the Arab world.

3- The third dimension is the most counterintuitive for a Western audience, and it is the one most consequential for how the current war is understood and misunderstood. For Arab nationalists, including secular nationalists and even those with deep reservations about Israeli policy, Iran represents a greater and more immediate threat than Israel does.

This is a position that Western media are structurally ill-equipped to render intelligible, because Western discourse on the Middle East has been organized for decades around the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as the primary axis of regional injustice.

The result is that when Western governments and Western publics take strong positions against Israel’s actions against Iran’s operations, they believe themselves to be standing with the Arab world. In reality, they are advancing a position that the Arab world does not share and has not asked for, while ignoring the threat that Arab governments and Arab populations actually live with.

The rhetorical use of Israel as a perpetual alibi for Iranian aggression has been one of the Islamic Republic’s most durable tools, and Western opinion has served as the unwitting amplifier of that tool across the entire duration of the Islamic Republic’s existence.

As an FYI, Nikki Haley is the Walter P. Stern Chair at the Hudson Institute, where this writer works. Significant funding to Hudson Institute comes from Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman and other defense contractors as well as various pro-Israel foundations.

Yep, this sort of "analysis" if you can even call it that, is clearly reflective of those who back its funding.

[Anonymous]

How embarrassing.

Benjamin Netanyahu says the Trump administration reports directly to him on a daily basis about Iran.

Netanyahu says JD Vance reported every single detail of the peace talks to him.

“He reported to me in detail, as members of this administration do every day.”

https://x.com/ShadowofEzra/status/2043663926747975848

[Anonymous]

Israel can’t bomb it’s way to security while entrenching the very dynamics that guarantee perpetual conflict.

A state that has normalized permanent war, indefinite occupation and collective punishment shouldn’t be surprised when each new campaign delivers the same result: tactical damage, zero political solution and a population cycling between fear and disillusionment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How embarrassing.

Benjamin Netanyahu says the Trump administration reports directly to him on a daily basis about Iran.

Netanyahu says JD Vance reported every single detail of the peace talks to him.

“He reported to me in detail, as members of this administration do every day.”

https://x.com/ShadowofEzra/status/2043663926747975848

Nutty Yahoo leads trump around by a ring through his nose.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:he Arab Word is Watching a Different War:

Three reasons why it has been difficult to understand the Arab position:

1 - The first is the Arab relationship with Iran. From the vantage point of Brussels or London, Iran presents itself as a resistance movement with a grievance against American hegemony and Israeli occupation, and this presentation maps comfortably onto familiar Western anticolonial frameworks.
What it does not map onto is the lived experience of Arab populations in Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen, Bahrain, Syria, and across the Gulf. In those countries, Iran's presence meant Hezbollah holding the Lebanese state hostage to Tehran's decisions, thirty-five armed factions in Iraq drawing salaries from Iranian funds channeled through the Iraqi national treasury, and Houthi commanders answering to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps while firing on Arab civilians from Yemeni soil. Freedom is not the word any serious Arab observer would use for what Iran brought.

Indeed, the Arab world's quarrel with Iran runs far deeper than American bases or Israeli airstrikes. What drives it is the systematic subversion of Arab sovereignty by a foreign power that uses the language of Islamic solidarity as cover for an imperial project conducted through proxies.

2 - The second dimension is the proxy question itself, where Western analysis fails most comprehensively. Iran goes far beyond supporting armed groups. Parallel state structures get built inside Arab countries, financial systems get captured, and political figures get installed who owe their existence and survival entirely to Tehran. The Iranians who have administered this project understand it as the export of a revolution, but what Arab populations have experienced is closer to a colonial occupation conducted through intermediaries, and as of now, they’re not mourning the Islamic Republic. But Westerners treat these proxy networks as instruments of legitimate resistance rather than as mechanisms of subjugation, they endorse an imperial project while believing themselves to be opposing one, and as a matter of fact, make themselves the legitimizing force behind Iran’s war against the Arab world.

3- The third dimension is the most counterintuitive for a Western audience, and it is the one most consequential for how the current war is understood and misunderstood. For Arab nationalists, including secular nationalists and even those with deep reservations about Israeli policy, Iran represents a greater and more immediate threat than Israel does.

This is a position that Western media are structurally ill-equipped to render intelligible, because Western discourse on the Middle East has been organized for decades around the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as the primary axis of regional injustice.

The result is that when Western governments and Western publics take strong positions against Israel’s actions against Iran’s operations, they believe themselves to be standing with the Arab world. In reality, they are advancing a position that the Arab world does not share and has not asked for, while ignoring the threat that Arab governments and Arab populations actually live with.

The rhetorical use of Israel as a perpetual alibi for Iranian aggression has been one of the Islamic Republic’s most durable tools, and Western opinion has served as the unwitting amplifier of that tool across the entire duration of the Islamic Republic’s existence.

So what? We should send our American sons and daughters to the ME to die due to this information?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:he Arab Word is Watching a Different War:

Three reasons why it has been difficult to understand the Arab position:

1 - The first is the Arab relationship with Iran. From the vantage point of Brussels or London, Iran presents itself as a resistance movement with a grievance against American hegemony and Israeli occupation, and this presentation maps comfortably onto familiar Western anticolonial frameworks.
What it does not map onto is the lived experience of Arab populations in Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen, Bahrain, Syria, and across the Gulf. In those countries, Iran's presence meant Hezbollah holding the Lebanese state hostage to Tehran's decisions, thirty-five armed factions in Iraq drawing salaries from Iranian funds channeled through the Iraqi national treasury, and Houthi commanders answering to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps while firing on Arab civilians from Yemeni soil. Freedom is not the word any serious Arab observer would use for what Iran brought.

Indeed, the Arab world's quarrel with Iran runs far deeper than American bases or Israeli airstrikes. What drives it is the systematic subversion of Arab sovereignty by a foreign power that uses the language of Islamic solidarity as cover for an imperial project conducted through proxies.

2 - The second dimension is the proxy question itself, where Western analysis fails most comprehensively. Iran goes far beyond supporting armed groups. Parallel state structures get built inside Arab countries, financial systems get captured, and political figures get installed who owe their existence and survival entirely to Tehran. The Iranians who have administered this project understand it as the export of a revolution, but what Arab populations have experienced is closer to a colonial occupation conducted through intermediaries, and as of now, they’re not mourning the Islamic Republic. But Westerners treat these proxy networks as instruments of legitimate resistance rather than as mechanisms of subjugation, they endorse an imperial project while believing themselves to be opposing one, and as a matter of fact, make themselves the legitimizing force behind Iran’s war against the Arab world.

3- The third dimension is the most counterintuitive for a Western audience, and it is the one most consequential for how the current war is understood and misunderstood. For Arab nationalists, including secular nationalists and even those with deep reservations about Israeli policy, Iran represents a greater and more immediate threat than Israel does.

This is a position that Western media are structurally ill-equipped to render intelligible, because Western discourse on the Middle East has been organized for decades around the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as the primary axis of regional injustice.

The result is that when Western governments and Western publics take strong positions against Israel’s actions against Iran’s operations, they believe themselves to be standing with the Arab world. In reality, they are advancing a position that the Arab world does not share and has not asked for, while ignoring the threat that Arab governments and Arab populations actually live with.

The rhetorical use of Israel as a perpetual alibi for Iranian aggression has been one of the Islamic Republic’s most durable tools, and Western opinion has served as the unwitting amplifier of that tool across the entire duration of the Islamic Republic’s existence.

Prior to joining Hudson Institute, Ms. Riboua was a research assistant at the Center for Jewish Civilization at Georgetown University, where she worked on Jewish identity in Morocco, Moroccan-Israeli relations, and the cultural impacts of the Abraham Accords.

Ms. Riboua’s pieces and commentary have been published in the Wall Street Journal, Foreign Policy, the National Interest, the Jerusalem Post, Tablet, and other outlets.

Ms. Riboua is an associate at the Association for Global Political Thought at Harvard University and a member of Tikvah Fund’s Young Professional Advisory Council.

Not like she has a horse in the race or anything like that.