An Iranian’s perspective

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I work with Iranians, and I have never heard a single one call themselves Persian.

I know one that calls herself Persian.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am Iranian. My parents, their parents, and their parents’ parents were born and raised in Iran. If you wish to test my Farsi, feel free - I will respond. I also consider myself to be politically progressive, to the extent that seems relevant to anyone reading.

A nuclear armed Iran would place the entire world in peril and enable the current regime to retain its stranglehold on power indefinitely. No one wants an Iran with nukes - not Israel, not the US, not Europe, not the surrounding Arab countries, not even the Iranian people. But only Israel has been willing to do anything about it (in an extremely targeted and largely bloodless way thus far, I might add). And instead of praise, it has received nothing but moral opprobrium. I can only attribute this to a myopic form of anti-Zionism that has become popular in left-wing circles recently and seems to subsume all else, including patriotism and self-interest.

To back off now would be to relinquish a historic opportunity (not likely to repeat itself) to hobble this regime permanently. Nothing else has worked in nearly five decades, and many things have been tried - popular protest movements, sanctions, negotiations. Of course I am terrified for the people of Iran. Whatever happens, the road ahead will be a scary and difficult one for them. But IMO, intervention is far preferable to the alternative.

Many people expressing opposition to Israel’s actions or the idea of any kind of US intervention are doing so from a place of genuine concern for the Iranian people/US troops. Their perception is colored by US failures in Iraq and Afghanistan. I will tell you that this is an entirely different scenario. The Iranian regime is extremely weak and unpopular. Its military power structure has already been largely decimated by Israel, and Khamenei is 86 years old. The people of Iran are increasingly young, educated, secular, and eager for political openness and contact with the rest of the world. This regime has been holding them hostage for 47 years, and if it obtains nukes, will do the same to the rest of the region and the world.

I’ve seen many posts claiming that Israel is dragging the US into a war to protect its own interests. No doubt, Israel will benefit greatly if Iran is de-fanged. But so will the rest of the world, including the United States and the Iranian people. Whatever one’s feelings are towards Israel/Netanyahu, I think it’s important to set those aside and look at objective reality. The choice here is not between intervention and the status quo. The choice is between intervention and a nuclear armed Iran. To the extent Israel prevents the latter, it will have done us ALL a great service.

This is a very intelligent, sober analysis of the situation, and sadly it's being skewered by people so myopic in their hatred of Israel, Jews, and Iranian women that they would prefer the Iranian regime to continue torturing it's own citizens. American progressives have lost the thread; Iran needs regime change now and Israel should push ahead and finish the job. Aside from fundamentalist Shia still drunk on anti-Israel KoolAid in Lebanon, Yemen, and Qatar, the rest of the Middle East Sunni regimes will likely welcome a neutralized Iran. And to all the young Americans expressing righteous indignation about potential military involvement, you need to talk to people who lived thorugh the 1979 hostage crisis, the 1983 bombing in Lebanon, dozens of hostage situations, and all the other nonsense that Iran has sponsored since the 1970s.

Yeah. We've heard all about these possibilities and probabilities before with Iraq and Afghanistan. All the years, resources and life wasted on the hope that the population will be strong enough to bring about real change when we exit. How did that work out?

Perhaps this time, the population should go first and show us that they are ready to die for change before we commit the lives of our sons and daughters to back them up. Let them take the lead.

Again, my point is that it is in the clear interest of AMERICA to prevent a nuclear armed Iran. I’m not sure what’s with all the comparisons to Iraq other than both countries happen to be in the Middle East. This is a completely different scenario. I don’t think any credible expert on the region doubts that Iran is dangerously close to acquiring nukes. This isn’t a WMD-style deception being perpetrated by US war hawks. This is a real and urgent threat.

And re: whether we’ll be welcomed as liberators - again, I’m not advocating that the US occupy the country and install a western puppet government. I’m saying that, based on my knowledge of the region, the Iranian people will bring about regime change all on their own if they are given a fighting chance.

We don't have a fighting chance sitting on a table to give away. We are talking about American lives being lost in a war. If we are not certain that Iranians will maintain real change, we are not interested in risking Anerican lives for a fighting chance.

Re-read the first sentence of the post you’re responding to. I’m not sure why this point is being lost. Not asking you to do the people of Iran any favors out of the goodness of your heart.

It was in the clear interest before Israel attacked, no? Yet we decided that negotiating a deal was the better option for us. If Israel has made the regime weaker, Iranians should step in and finish the job. We will sit back and hope to negotiate when things cool off/ get better.

Respectfully, America does not have that kind of time. We preferred negotiation (misguidedly imho, but that’s another topic) BEFORE we had access to intelligence telling us the nuclear threat was urgent. If you want to argue the reliability of that intelligence, feel free, but I don’t think even those who oppose intervention are challenging it currently. Again, this is not an Iraq/WMD situation. I understand the skepticism and the “boy who cried wolf” comparisons, but this time the wolf is real - I don’t think that much is in dispute.

From the same people who said the nuclear threat was imminent in 1996, 2002, 2012, 2016, 2024, and now 2025. From the same people who gave the world WMDs in Iraq. GTFOH

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am Iranian. My parents, their parents, and their parents’ parents were born and raised in Iran. If you wish to test my Farsi, feel free - I will respond. I also consider myself to be politically progressive, to the extent that seems relevant to anyone reading.

A nuclear armed Iran would place the entire world in peril and enable the current regime to retain its stranglehold on power indefinitely. No one wants an Iran with nukes - not Israel, not the US, not Europe, not the surrounding Arab countries, not even the Iranian people. But only Israel has been willing to do anything about it (in an extremely targeted and largely bloodless way thus far, I might add). And instead of praise, it has received nothing but moral opprobrium. I can only attribute this to a myopic form of anti-Zionism that has become popular in left-wing circles recently and seems to subsume all else, including patriotism and self-interest.

To back off now would be to relinquish a historic opportunity (not likely to repeat itself) to hobble this regime permanently. Nothing else has worked in nearly five decades, and many things have been tried - popular protest movements, sanctions, negotiations. Of course I am terrified for the people of Iran. Whatever happens, the road ahead will be a scary and difficult one for them. But IMO, intervention is far preferable to the alternative.

Many people expressing opposition to Israel’s actions or the idea of any kind of US intervention are doing so from a place of genuine concern for the Iranian people/US troops. Their perception is colored by US failures in Iraq and Afghanistan. I will tell you that this is an entirely different scenario. The Iranian regime is extremely weak and unpopular. Its military power structure has already been largely decimated by Israel, and Khamenei is 86 years old. The people of Iran are increasingly young, educated, secular, and eager for political openness and contact with the rest of the world. This regime has been holding them hostage for 47 years, and if it obtains nukes, will do the same to the rest of the region and the world.

I’ve seen many posts claiming that Israel is dragging the US into a war to protect its own interests. No doubt, Israel will benefit greatly if Iran is de-fanged. But so will the rest of the world, including the United States and the Iranian people. Whatever one’s feelings are towards Israel/Netanyahu, I think it’s important to set those aside and look at objective reality. The choice here is not between intervention and the status quo. The choice is between intervention and a nuclear armed Iran. To the extent Israel prevents the latter, it will have done us ALL a great service.

This is a very intelligent, sober analysis of the situation, and sadly it's being skewered by people so myopic in their hatred of Israel, Jews, and Iranian women that they would prefer the Iranian regime to continue torturing it's own citizens. American progressives have lost the thread; Iran needs regime change now and Israel should push ahead and finish the job. Aside from fundamentalist Shia still drunk on anti-Israel KoolAid in Lebanon, Yemen, and Qatar, the rest of the Middle East Sunni regimes will likely welcome a neutralized Iran. And to all the young Americans expressing righteous indignation about potential military involvement, you need to talk to people who lived thorugh the 1979 hostage crisis, the 1983 bombing in Lebanon, dozens of hostage situations, and all the other nonsense that Iran has sponsored since the 1970s.

Yeah. We've heard all about these possibilities and probabilities before with Iraq and Afghanistan. All the years, resources and life wasted on the hope that the population will be strong enough to bring about real change when we exit. How did that work out?

Perhaps this time, the population should go first and show us that they are ready to die for change before we commit the lives of our sons and daughters to back them up. Let them take the lead.

Again, my point is that it is in the clear interest of AMERICA to prevent a nuclear armed Iran. I’m not sure what’s with all the comparisons to Iraq other than both countries happen to be in the Middle East. This is a completely different scenario. I don’t think any credible expert on the region doubts that Iran is dangerously close to acquiring nukes. This isn’t a WMD-style deception being perpetrated by US war hawks. This is a real and urgent threat.

And re: whether we’ll be welcomed as liberators - again, I’m not advocating that the US occupy the country and install a western puppet government. I’m saying that, based on my knowledge of the region, the Iranian people will bring about regime change all on their own if they are given a fighting chance.

We don't have a fighting chance sitting on a table to give away. We are talking about American lives being lost in a war. If we are not certain that Iranians will maintain real change, we are not interested in risking Anerican lives for a fighting chance.

Re-read the first sentence of the post you’re responding to. I’m not sure why this point is being lost. Not asking you to do the people of Iran any favors out of the goodness of your heart.

It was in the clear interest before Israel attacked, no? Yet we decided that negotiating a deal was the better option for us. If Israel has made the regime weaker, Iranians should step in and finish the job. We will sit back and hope to negotiate when things cool off/ get better.

Respectfully, America does not have that kind of time. We preferred negotiation (misguidedly imho, but that’s another topic) BEFORE we had access to intelligence telling us the nuclear threat was urgent. If you want to argue the reliability of that intelligence, feel free, but I don’t think even those who oppose intervention are challenging it currently. Again, this is not an Iraq/WMD situation. I understand the skepticism and the “boy who cried wolf” comparisons, but this time the wolf is real - I don’t think that much is in dispute.

Its interest that you did not start a thread on how little time we have until Israel attacked Iran. Do you think Netanyahu has accelerated the timeline? Otherwise, why now?

Lol despite what many on this thread seem to think, I am not mossad. I do not have advance access to Israeli intelligence.

Mossad lies. All the time

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:America and Israel should be more concerned without our eroding freedoms and path to autocracy (Netanyahu, Trump). We cannot stand on the soapbox of freedom
And democracy from tyranny when we are on that path as well

👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏

This sort of moral equivalence is so tiresome. For all our problems (and I agree with you that we are on that path), we are not Iran or anywhere close to it. Demanding that the US cure itself of all its ills before defending itself on the world stage will insure there is no America left to perfect/improve.

Hyperbole

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am Iranian. My parents, their parents, and their parents’ parents were born and raised in Iran. If you wish to test my Farsi, feel free - I will respond. I also consider myself to be politically progressive, to the extent that seems relevant to anyone reading.

A nuclear armed Iran would place the entire world in peril and enable the current regime to retain its stranglehold on power indefinitely. No one wants an Iran with nukes - not Israel, not the US, not Europe, not the surrounding Arab countries, not even the Iranian people. But only Israel has been willing to do anything about it (in an extremely targeted and largely bloodless way thus far, I might add). And instead of praise, it has received nothing but moral opprobrium. I can only attribute this to a myopic form of anti-Zionism that has become popular in left-wing circles recently and seems to subsume all else, including patriotism and self-interest.

To back off now would be to relinquish a historic opportunity (not likely to repeat itself) to hobble this regime permanently. Nothing else has worked in nearly five decades, and many things have been tried - popular protest movements, sanctions, negotiations. Of course I am terrified for the people of Iran. Whatever happens, the road ahead will be a scary and difficult one for them. But IMO, intervention is far preferable to the alternative.

Many people expressing opposition to Israel’s actions or the idea of any kind of US intervention are doing so from a place of genuine concern for the Iranian people/US troops. Their perception is colored by US failures in Iraq and Afghanistan. I will tell you that this is an entirely different scenario. The Iranian regime is extremely weak and unpopular. Its military power structure has already been largely decimated by Israel, and Khamenei is 86 years old. The people of Iran are increasingly young, educated, secular, and eager for political openness and contact with the rest of the world. This regime has been holding them hostage for 47 years, and if it obtains nukes, will do the same to the rest of the region and the world.

I’ve seen many posts claiming that Israel is dragging the US into a war to protect its own interests. No doubt, Israel will benefit greatly if Iran is de-fanged. But so will the rest of the world, including the United States and the Iranian people. Whatever one’s feelings are towards Israel/Netanyahu, I think it’s important to set those aside and look at objective reality. The choice here is not between intervention and the status quo. The choice is between intervention and a nuclear armed Iran. To the extent Israel prevents the latter, it will have done us ALL a great service.

This is a very intelligent, sober analysis of the situation, and sadly it's being skewered by people so myopic in their hatred of Israel, Jews, and Iranian women that they would prefer the Iranian regime to continue torturing it's own citizens. American progressives have lost the thread; Iran needs regime change now and Israel should push ahead and finish the job. Aside from fundamentalist Shia still drunk on anti-Israel KoolAid in Lebanon, Yemen, and Qatar, the rest of the Middle East Sunni regimes will likely welcome a neutralized Iran. And to all the young Americans expressing righteous indignation about potential military involvement, you need to talk to people who lived thorugh the 1979 hostage crisis, the 1983 bombing in Lebanon, dozens of hostage situations, and all the other nonsense that Iran has sponsored since the 1970s.

Yeah. We've heard all about these possibilities and probabilities before with Iraq and Afghanistan. All the years, resources and life wasted on the hope that the population will be strong enough to bring about real change when we exit. How did that work out?

Perhaps this time, the population should go first and show us that they are ready to die for change before we commit the lives of our sons and daughters to back them up. Let them take the lead.

Again, my point is that it is in the clear interest of AMERICA to prevent a nuclear armed Iran. I’m not sure what’s with all the comparisons to Iraq other than both countries happen to be in the Middle East. This is a completely different scenario. I don’t think any credible expert on the region doubts that Iran is dangerously close to acquiring nukes. This isn’t a WMD-style deception being perpetrated by US war hawks. This is a real and urgent threat.

And re: whether we’ll be welcomed as liberators - again, I’m not advocating that the US occupy the country and install a western puppet government. I’m saying that, based on my knowledge of the region, the Iranian people will bring about regime change all on their own if they are given a fighting chance.

We don't have a fighting chance sitting on a table to give away. We are talking about American lives being lost in a war. If we are not certain that Iranians will maintain real change, we are not interested in risking Anerican lives for a fighting chance.

Re-read the first sentence of the post you’re responding to. I’m not sure why this point is being lost. Not asking you to do the people of Iran any favors out of the goodness of your heart.

It was in the clear interest before Israel attacked, no? Yet we decided that negotiating a deal was the better option for us. If Israel has made the regime weaker, Iranians should step in and finish the job. We will sit back and hope to negotiate when things cool off/ get better.

Respectfully, America does not have that kind of time. We preferred negotiation (misguidedly imho, but that’s another topic) BEFORE we had access to intelligence telling us the nuclear threat was urgent. If you want to argue the reliability of that intelligence, feel free, but I don’t think even those who oppose intervention are challenging it currently. Again, this is not an Iraq/WMD situation. I understand the skepticism and the “boy who cried wolf” comparisons, but this time the wolf is real - I don’t think that much is in dispute.

From the same people who said the nuclear threat was imminent in 1996, 2002, 2012, 2016, 2024, and now 2025. From the same people who gave the world WMDs in Iraq. GTFOH

1996 eh? Coincidentally the same year Netanyahu came up with the clean break report where he listed Iran as a nation that needed to be toppled

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How can you speak for the Iranian people? There are 90 million of them. By generalizing your perspective to everyone, you really showed your hand.

As an American, I may dislike Donald Trump but that doesn’t mean I want the White House and Pentagon to get firebombed by a foreign nation as part of a regime change war.

Politics and patriotism are two separate orders of business. A real person wouldn’t want their home country entangled in a war.

Go back to the drawing board and try again

+1.

Easy for OP to say when they are sitting comfortably in the U.S.

If the regime is as weak as OP says, then Iranians should topple it themselves.

Exactly! The US shouldn't be the world's nanny + cop. Iran hates the US...why should we rescue it? And, as an earlier poster said, Iranians call themselves " Persian" to honor their ancient heritage.

[Anonymous]

shah’ was an American friendly dictator installed by the cia & mi6 after the democratically elected leader was ousted. Your friend and her family were skimming off the top and allowing BP to leave the rest of Iran impoverished. Your friend was happy to leave the rest of her country men poor while she partied.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Iran turned off its countries internet so unfortunately no Iranian living in Iran can reply.

But I seriously doubt most of them would care if their “supreme leader” was visited by a precision munition while having lunch with his son.

Those guys are pretty much total pricks.

Eh. As our own decisive politics have shown, this has been said about our supreme leader. What's your point? It doesn't make it the right decision. It's disconcerting how some of you think that killing a president, of any country, is NBD

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am Iranian. My parents, their parents, and their parents’ parents were born and raised in Iran. If you wish to test my Farsi, feel free - I will respond. I also consider myself to be politically progressive, to the extent that seems relevant to anyone reading.

A nuclear armed Iran would place the entire world in peril and enable the current regime to retain its stranglehold on power indefinitely. No one wants an Iran with nukes - not Israel, not the US, not Europe, not the surrounding Arab countries, not even the Iranian people. But only Israel has been willing to do anything about it (in an extremely targeted and largely bloodless way thus far, I might add). And instead of praise, it has received nothing but moral opprobrium. I can only attribute this to a myopic form of anti-Zionism that has become popular in left-wing circles recently and seems to subsume all else, including patriotism and self-interest.

To back off now would be to relinquish a historic opportunity (not likely to repeat itself) to hobble this regime permanently. Nothing else has worked in nearly five decades, and many things have been tried - popular protest movements, sanctions, negotiations. Of course I am terrified for the people of Iran. Whatever happens, the road ahead will be a scary and difficult one for them. But IMO, intervention is far preferable to the alternative.

Many people expressing opposition to Israel’s actions or the idea of any kind of US intervention are doing so from a place of genuine concern for the Iranian people/US troops. Their perception is colored by US failures in Iraq and Afghanistan. I will tell you that this is an entirely different scenario. The Iranian regime is extremely weak and unpopular. Its military power structure has already been largely decimated by Israel, and Khamenei is 86 years old. The people of Iran are increasingly young, educated, secular, and eager for political openness and contact with the rest of the world. This regime has been holding them hostage for 47 years, and if it obtains nukes, will do the same to the rest of the region and the world.

I’ve seen many posts claiming that Israel is dragging the US into a war to protect its own interests. No doubt, Israel will benefit greatly if Iran is de-fanged. But so will the rest of the world, including the United States and the Iranian people. Whatever one’s feelings are towards Israel/Netanyahu, I think it’s important to set those aside and look at objective reality. The choice here is not between intervention and the status quo. The choice is between intervention and a nuclear armed Iran. To the extent Israel prevents the latter, it will have done us ALL a great service.

This is a very intelligent, sober analysis of the situation, and sadly it's being skewered by people so myopic in their hatred of Israel, Jews, and Iranian women that they would prefer the Iranian regime to continue torturing it's own citizens. American progressives have lost the thread; Iran needs regime change now and Israel should push ahead and finish the job. Aside from fundamentalist Shia still drunk on anti-Israel KoolAid in Lebanon, Yemen, and Qatar, the rest of the Middle East Sunni regimes will likely welcome a neutralized Iran. And to all the young Americans expressing righteous indignation about potential military involvement, you need to talk to people who lived thorugh the 1979 hostage crisis, the 1983 bombing in Lebanon, dozens of hostage situations, and all the other nonsense that Iran has sponsored since the 1970s.

Yeah. We've heard all about these possibilities and probabilities before with Iraq and Afghanistan. All the years, resources and life wasted on the hope that the population will be strong enough to bring about real change when we exit. How did that work out?

Perhaps this time, the population should go first and show us that they are ready to die for change before we commit the lives of our sons and daughters to back them up. Let them take the lead.

Again, my point is that it is in the clear interest of AMERICA to prevent a nuclear armed Iran. I’m not sure what’s with all the comparisons to Iraq other than both countries happen to be in the Middle East. This is a completely different scenario. I don’t think any credible expert on the region doubts that Iran is dangerously close to acquiring nukes. This isn’t a WMD-style deception being perpetrated by US war hawks. This is a real and urgent threat.

And re: whether we’ll be welcomed as liberators - again, I’m not advocating that the US occupy the country and install a western puppet government. I’m saying that, based on my knowledge of the region, the Iranian people will bring about regime change all on their own if they are given a fighting chance.

We don't have a fighting chance sitting on a table to give away. We are talking about American lives being lost in a war. If we are not certain that Iranians will maintain real change, we are not interested in risking Anerican lives for a fighting chance.

Re-read the first sentence of the post you’re responding to. I’m not sure why this point is being lost. Not asking you to do the people of Iran any favors out of the goodness of your heart.

It was in the clear interest before Israel attacked, no? Yet we decided that negotiating a deal was the better option for us. If Israel has made the regime weaker, Iranians should step in and finish the job. We will sit back and hope to negotiate when things cool off/ get better.

Respectfully, America does not have that kind of time. We preferred negotiation (misguidedly imho, but that’s another topic) BEFORE we had access to intelligence telling us the nuclear threat was urgent. If you want to argue the reliability of that intelligence, feel free, but I don’t think even those who oppose intervention are challenging it currently. Again, this is not an Iraq/WMD situation. I understand the skepticism and the “boy who cried wolf” comparisons, but this time the wolf is real - I don’t think that much is in dispute.

From the same people who said the nuclear threat was imminent in 1996, 2002, 2012, 2016, 2024, and now 2025. From the same people who gave the world WMDs in Iraq. GTFOH

1996 eh? Coincidentally the same year Netanyahu came up with the clean break report where he listed Iran as a nation that needed to be toppled

Yep. Some say it was as early as 1992. I found 1996.
https://www.cnbctv18.com/world/for-3-decades-israeli-pm-netanyahu-has-claimed-iran-months-away-from-nuclear-weapons-19622919.htm

https://deepnewz.com/middle-east/cnn-montage-highlights-netanyahus-decades-long-warnings-impending-iranian-c9b444c5

https://www.aljazeera.com/gallery/2025/6/18/the-history-of-netanyahus-rhetoric-on-irans-nuclear-ambitions

https://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/benjaminnetanyahujointsession1996.htm

https://www.bing.com/search?q=netanyahu%201996%20on%20iran%20nukes&qs=n&form=QBRE&sp=-1&ghc=1&lq=0&pq=netanyahu%201996%20on%20iran%20nukes&sc=0-28&sk=&cvid=080374E6B0A24E85A3E9FEE6A0E4F734

https://www.moneycontrol.com/world/video-shows-netanyahu-s-warnings-about-iran-developing-nuclear-weapons-from-1996-till-now-watch-article-13140955.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How can you speak for the Iranian people? There are 90 million of them. By generalizing your perspective to everyone, you really showed your hand.

As an American, I may dislike Donald Trump but that doesn’t mean I want the White House and Pentagon to get firebombed by a foreign nation as part of a regime change war.

Politics and patriotism are two separate orders of business. A real person wouldn’t want their home country entangled in a war.

Go back to the drawing board and try again

I don’t claim to speak for all Iranian people. Just myself and many of those I am in contact with. My people are entangled in chaos and violence either way. At least intervention would have a productive purpose.

No, it won’t get better. It will turn Iran into the next Iraq.
We understand you are a political opponent of the current regime in Iran. But you are stupid to invite foreign powers to bomb your country so you can settle political scores.

I talked to some exit Iranians who hate the Iranian regime but most of them condemned these attacks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How can you speak for the Iranian people? There are 90 million of them. By generalizing your perspective to everyone, you really showed your hand.

As an American, I may dislike Donald Trump but that doesn’t mean I want the White House and Pentagon to get firebombed by a foreign nation as part of a regime change war.

Politics and patriotism are two separate orders of business. A real person wouldn’t want their home country entangled in a war.

Go back to the drawing board and try again

+1.

Easy for OP to say when they are sitting comfortably in the U.S.

If the regime is as weak as OP says, then Iranians should topple it themselves.

Exactly! The US shouldn't be the world's nanny + cop. Iran hates the US...why should we rescue it? And, as an earlier poster said, Iranians call themselves " Persian" to honor their ancient heritage.

To be clear -- the vast majority of Iranian do NOT hate Americans. On the contrary. They have been suppressed by this government since the coup and its been awful for them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How can you speak for the Iranian people? There are 90 million of them. By generalizing your perspective to everyone, you really showed your hand.

As an American, I may dislike Donald Trump but that doesn’t mean I want the White House and Pentagon to get firebombed by a foreign nation as part of a regime change war.

Politics and patriotism are two separate orders of business. A real person wouldn’t want their home country entangled in a war.

Go back to the drawing board and try again

+1.

Easy for OP to say when they are sitting comfortably in the U.S.

If the regime is as weak as OP says, then Iranians should topple it themselves.

Exactly! The US shouldn't be the world's nanny + cop. Iran hates the US...why should we rescue it? And, as an earlier poster said, Iranians call themselves " Persian" to honor their ancient heritage.

To be clear -- the vast majority of Iranian do NOT hate Americans. On the contrary. They have been suppressed by this government since the coup and its been awful for them.

And they’re going to love us even more when we bomb their families! We will be greeted in the streets as liberators just like Iraq!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How can you speak for the Iranian people? There are 90 million of them. By generalizing your perspective to everyone, you really showed your hand.

As an American, I may dislike Donald Trump but that doesn’t mean I want the White House and Pentagon to get firebombed by a foreign nation as part of a regime change war.

Politics and patriotism are two separate orders of business. A real person wouldn’t want their home country entangled in a war.

Go back to the drawing board and try again

+1.

Easy for OP to say when they are sitting comfortably in the U.S.

If the regime is as weak as OP says, then Iranians should topple it themselves.

Exactly! The US shouldn't be the world's nanny + cop. Iran hates the US...why should we rescue it? And, as an earlier poster said, Iranians call themselves " Persian" to honor their ancient heritage.

To be clear -- the vast majority of Iranian do NOT hate Americans. On the contrary. They have been suppressed by this government since the coup and its been awful for them.

And they’re going to love us even more when we bomb their families! We will be greeted in the streets as liberators just like Iraq!

My point was only in response to the PP who write "Iran hates the US - why should we rescue it?" Of course the regime hates the US - but Iranians do not.

My father and brother in law are stuck in Tehran now. They cannot get out as traffic is sit still, and gas lines are even longer (and then you can only get so much gas after waiting for hours). It is a very tough situation to say the least. Iranians hate their government but also know that Netanyahu and Trump are not their saviors by any means. They are pawns and it is gut wrenching. I hope, somehow, a silver lining comes out of it for the people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I hear the OP, but it's up to the Middle East to resolve Middle Eastern problems. We have sacrificed American lives, spent money that was needed domestically, and spent decades in the Middle East. So have other nations, not just the U.S. What were the end results of those efforts?

Need we belabor the point?

Very questionable how the American public is being "softened" across multiple social media with the "need" to go to war against Iran.

Lol you think the United States CIA and war machine did that for the benefit of the benefit of the middle eastern people? Big snort.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Maybe if we leave people alone, they won’t hate us.

Let’s try that for a change

3 U.S. Service Members Killed, Others Injured in Jordan Following Drone Attack

Jan. 29, 2024 | By C. Todd Lopez, DOD News

"Three U.S. soldiers were killed yesterday in Jordan, while more than 40 other service members were injured following an uncrewed aerial system attack at a military base near the Syrian border. Those service members were in Jordan to support Operation Inherent Resolve, which is the U.S. and coalition mission to ensure the defeat of ISIS. "

"The three soldiers killed are Sgt. William Jerome Rivers of Carrollton, Georgia; Spc. Kennedy Ladon Sanders of Waycross, Georgia; and Spc. Breonna Alexsondria Moffett of Savannah, Georgia. All three were assigned to the 718th Engineer Company, 926th Engineer Battalion, 926th Engineer Brigade, Fort Moore, Georgia."

"In terms of attribution for the attack, we know this is an [Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps ]-backed militia," she said. "It has the footprints of Kataib Hezbollah. But not making a final assessment on that, our teams here are continuing to do the analysis. We know that Iran is behind it. And certainly as we've said before ... Iran continues to arm and equip these groups to launch these attacks, and we will certainly hold them responsible."

https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/3659809/3-us-service-members-killed-others-injured-in-jordan-following-drone-attack/