An Iranian’s perspective

[Anonymous]

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.

Your knowledge of the region does not hold soothing our concerns. Several people with knowledge of those other regions believed as strongly as you do that the local populations would be able to bring/ maintain meaningful change after we invaded. They were wrong. This is a tale as old as time. Go to any region where outside nations toppled governments. In most cases, chaos ensued and no real change happened.

On the other hand, Persians > Arabs

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thank you for sharing your perspective.

At the same time, do you really think a full-fledged US war on Iran will lead to a better outcome for the people who live there?

I think there’s a lot of doomerism going on and a “full-fledged war” is not going to go how people are imagining. A “full-fledged war” requires two sides and Israel has basically obliterated Iran’s capacity to fight back in like, a week. Without America’s help. They’ve also taken out all of Iran’s proxies is the region - Hamas, Hezbollah, the Assad regime. Russia is distracted and overextended. The Iranian people hate their government. No one is coming to save this regime. This is an easy win - Israel has already done all the dirty work. America should stop hand-wringing and worrying about another Iraq/Afghanistan/whatever other unrelated conflict and do what needs to be done to get this thing across finish line.

You are grossly underestimating the reality of war. We have repeated this easy win farce in almost every war we have gotten ourselves into. War is never as easy as it seems.

[Anonymous]

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.

Your knowledge of the region does not hold soothing our concerns. Several people with knowledge of those other regions believed as strongly as you do that the local populations would be able to bring/ maintain meaningful change after we invaded. They were wrong. This is a tale as old as time. Go to any region where outside nations toppled governments. In most cases, chaos ensued and no real change happened.

On the other hand, Persians > Arabs

Wonderful! Let them fight for their greatness.

[Anonymous]

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.

We had a nuclear deal that the morons shot down. This is such a stupid self inflicted wound by Israel and the US that I can’t help but feel was designed to drag us into a prolonged war for profit.

That nuclear deal enabled Iran's production of nuclear material. They developed better centrifuges using other chemicals. Better centrifuges lowers the time to make weapons grade uranium.
Obama's deal would have run out pretty soon, and then Iran would have better centrifuges and ability to produce weapons grade uranium on a very short time frame. Right now they are not quite weapons grade, but pretty close. So even with no cheating, Iran would have been nuclear capable within a few years. And more money to spend on the program as they dropped sanctions.

[Anonymous]

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.

[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.

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?

[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.

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.

[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.

You underestimate the skepticism. If you understood it, your arguments would not sound exactly as those made in favor of recent wars. You have to give us something different, something much stronger.

[Anonymous]

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.

So now you hate Israel AND Jews if you don’t want the US to help them attack Iran? WTF! Israel can fight this on their own, then these liberated Iranian women can thank them. There is no reason this needs to happen now, and no reason the US needs to get involved.

[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.

I actually think you are decent person with reasonable opinions. I just happen to disagree with some of them. I am trying to point out that if we did not see this much urgency to go into war before Netanyahu attacked. We should not let him drag us in if we are not certain we can make a real difference.

[Anonymous]

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

👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I actually think you are decent person with reasonable opinions. I just happen to disagree with some of them. I am trying to point out that if we did not see this much urgency to go into war before Netanyahu attacked. We should not let him drag us in if we are not certain we can make a real difference.

That’s a fair point - the point I’m trying to make is that the intelligence supporting intervention seems to be extremely recent. And I don’t know that you can say we did not see the urgency before. None of us has that kind of visibility into US intelligence or decision making. It could very well be that we DID see the urgency and gave Israel the green light to attack for that reason.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Imagine if we had a diplomatically brokered a deal to ensure that Iran complies with the IAEA and doesn't develop a weapon in exchange for sanctions relief?

Oh wait...

Year Mr Deal Breaker took care of that.

I've never paid much attention to this whole thing. I did some reading today, and now I wonder - why shouldn't Israel be allowed to remain a country? Why does Iran need to develop nukes, and who is Ayatolla Khomeni to decide whether or not Israel exists?

[Anonymous]

*Yeah* Mr Deal-breaker

[Anonymous]

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.