Your wife doesnt live in iran im assuming? She wont risk her child being killed in preschool by a tomahawk, or having to live without electricity or transportation or drinking water because trump bombed it?

As someone from and in a thirdworld country, these expats can be even more arrogant and psychopathic than the imperialists they live under

My in-laws all live in Iran. My wife has many aunts, uncles, and cousins. I don’t even know how many people - it’s probably 20 to 30 people at least. All in Tehran.

My mother-in-law is the most anti-regime person I’ve met.

Those people didnt lose faith in the US after it bombed a preschool? At one point you have to wonder if this is good versus evil or evil versus evil

I will respond to your comment honestly. I have literally talked about this topic with actual Iranians.

The Iranians I’ve spoken to feel that the ends will justify the means.

They believe that people will die either way, protesters are dying right now. So if they can destroy the regime, then it will be worth it.

I understand the desire to end that murderous regime. If I were Iranian, I'd want to see it ended too. But do they really think bombs will achieve that? More importantly, would more bombing actually bring the regime down?

Regimes rarely fall because civilians are reduced to searching for food and water. Destroying Iran's infrastructure would be more likely to produce desperation and disorder than revolt. It would hurt the weakest most, not those closest to the regime and best positioned to shield themselves from scarcity.

If outsiders want to help bring the regime down, supporting opposition forces would at least make more sense than bombing civilians into misery.

This is where not betraying the Kurds (several times) would have come in handy...

Is this iranians in iran or the diaspora? If its people in iran then theyre walking the walk which is admirable. If its the diaspora then theyre psychopaths for sacrificing innocents for government change in a country they dont live in

I have a serious problem with calling 100+ schoolgirls who - at best - got instantly dismembered by a bomb and didnt suffer (too much) and at worst were crushed to death or bled out from shrapnel wounds "evil"

I was referring to the US government verus the Iranian government. People think its good v evil but thay bombing and the double tapping shows it might be evil v evil

Obviously no one is calling the victims evil. You have to suspect thats a misinterpretation if thats what you get from a comment

I try not to say things like this on here, but readong all your comments in this thread, it really feels like your not arguing in good faith

China and russia can. And they can send that shit to iran through pakistan and the caspian

You gotta bet china and russia loved what happened here

lol no, they both have lost substantial influence in Iran... the US has been chipping away at the spheres of influence for both China and Russia in recent months, first with Venezuela and now Iran. Hopefully Cuba is next.

And the US surveillance capabilities are substantially greater than they were during the Iraq and Vietnam wars. Smuggling in drones or missiles isn't some trivial affair.

And again, if they do that, we just decapitate their leadership again. And again. Until they stop.

Call it a draw then. Which is crazy against the world superpower. And terrible for the US

Hormuz isnt international waters. Its split between iran and oman, as woukd the toll be in irans proposal

This sounds like goalpost moving. Like if you fail to acheive regime change, just say whateber the consequences of your failure were had been your objectives from the start. According to "some" who might "say"

You speak like you and I discussed this before, and you remember where the original goalposts were.

Many analysts suggested that the attack was a smoke-and-mirrors, and the actual goal has always been financial. Similar to the tariffs story. According to that opinion the outcome of the attempt is irrelevant. Regardless of whether the regime have changed or not, the goal is still achieved.

The main one was stayed to be regine change. That didnt happen

> If I was in a very small company where I had reason to care and control over things, I'd be far more incentivized to work harder.

Exactly. This is the point being missed by the people saying that only some people want to work hard and they go to startups. Everyone would if they were closer to the stakes of their work (impact, decision making, accountability, authority etc)

Not being a stakeholder in them yeah. Which doesnt even necessitate power, but even just the right to be informed and kept abreast of them. The author makes this point in the article