Ayatollah says Iran triumphed in the U.S.-Israeli war and dealt a “severe blow”

[creepycoug]

We lost thousands of dead Americans and tens of thousands with horrific injuries for a forever war in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Sure. Just don't repeat that kind of mistake. Easy.
Again, all I'm saying is that it's a bit simplistic to point to campaign promises and freak out when the boss hits the button. When Israel threw the punch, the campaign promise hawks said "don't get involved." Well, we got involved. It may not be the end. Probably will not be.
If the litmus test is "boots on the ground," then fine. That's a line I'm willing to honor unless Israel needs saving. Otherwise, sure. Don't try and impose democracy there. I agree it doesn't work. Though I wonder about Iran in that regard, but we can leave that discussion for another time.
Again, if oil prices are on the table, I think we're signed up for a bit more involvement over there than the campaign promise crowd would like.

 

[DerekJohnson]

Nothing is really going to change with the Islamic Republic until they are folded inside out. The right wing (don't twist) theocracy there is not going away any time soon. Yeah, their nuke program has been set back (my condolences to buck and the other anti-American trash on this board), but they'll come back and be a problem in no time. Still funding terror, still pursuing nukes, still hating the US and trying to thwart its interests at every turn.
There is a liberal contingent in Iran. Not like our resident retard liberals, e.g. bucktard and the girls, but tuff classical liberals; people who can read and know the earth isn't flat. This is a pretty good piece, albeit from 2021: What Does Iran Really Want?
A couple of relevant excerpts:
While the Vienna negotiations have been led by Iran’s liberals over the last eight years or so, the so-called "Endurance Front" was working to extend the Islamic Republic’s influence outside its borders, taking advantage of the increased fragility of Arab regimes grappling with domestic unrest. Whether Iran is out to implement a Grand Shia design, or crafting a defensive sectarian shield for itself amounts to one and the same.  In the aftermath of the 1979 revolution, those who were seen as advocating openness were violently purged before resurfacing under Presidents Khatami and Rohani. They are in favor of more peaceful relations with neighboring countries, which would imply abandoning the military-sectarian shield that Iran maintains throughout the region at great expense. Their vision appeared to be consistent with the population’s demands as expressed during the 2017-2018 protests. From then on, the representatives of this group within the ruling elites became an existential danger and an enemy to crush for the conservative establishment. Their influence on any major policy decision has now been all but eliminated. (emphasis added).
…
Iran’s support for the Palestinian cause and its rhetoric of an ongoing war against Israel should be read in this context. If it was up to the Iranian people, a large majority would be in favor of normalizing relations with the Jewish state. And if seen from a sectarian perspective, Jerusalem is mostly a holy site of Sunni heritage and is not central to the Shia tradition. It is true that Ayatollah Khomeini was an early champion of the Palestinian cause, but in retrospect, that stance seems to have served more as an alibi to hide the narrowly Shia nature of his project. Iran’s anti-Israeli militancy serves multiple purposes, the most important of which is to argue that the Jewish state’s military power and behavior justify Iran’s own military and nuclear program. As to Iran’s arming of the Sunni movement Hamas in Gaza, it serves to maintain an indirect presence on Israel’s southwestern flank while driving a wedge into the Sunni front of Arab countries. 

A people unwilling to fight for their own freedom are unlikely to appreciate it being given to them by a foreign power.
Also, until the democrats handed them pallets of cash the regime was on a razor edge with no ability to fund themselves let alone proxies. It's very simple to get back to that state of affairs.
Doubly so since Russia and China are themselves scarce of funds to prop up Iran these days.

I hope you are right.
Thanks, Obama.
Maybe the ongoing policy is full sanction, prop up Israel and periodically bomb the ever loving shit out of strategic targets.
I can get on board with that.
I just need a break from the Steve Bannon/Tucker Carlson "you said you more forever wars!!!!" kermit the frog handwringing girl scouts. It's unmanly and it's unrealistic. We have interests around the globe. We are going to protect our interests as long as we have a man in the White House.
God help us when the pendulum swings back hard to American Liberal Theocracy.
We have a window here with a guy in the chair who is willing to swing the dick. Let him swing.
Let me ask you this: what would you have Trump do if the Iranians started getting cute with Hormuz? I think I know what the gals would say. What would you say?

Steve Bannon's #1 dedicated life mission alongside America First is the downfall of the Chinese Communist Party. There's a price on his head. He is sanctioned by the CCP. He also refused to bend to Pelosi's illegal January 6 committee and as a result spent four months in PRISON for a misdemeanor. But yes Creep, by all means let's refer to him as a hand-wringing Kermit the frog

 

[WestlinnDuck]

What does that have to do with all his hand wringing about a B-2 strike on Iran's nuke facilities? The two big hits on China have been the tariffs forcing China to back off on predatory trade and steering hundreds of billions of dollars of investment out of China and the notice that Trump is no DACO dementia patient telling Iran "Don't". I give Bannon lots of credit where credit is due.

 

[creepycoug]

I think you're being a little hard on the Creep, Stalin.

What Westlinn said. I recognize Bannon for his role in the movement; in fact, I've done so on this forum plenty of times. But I don't agree with him all the time, and now is one of those times. The Israelis leading with the jab and the US brining in the overhand right was the correct move IMO. Every now and again, the big guy has to remind the little guy that the little guy is the little guy. That happened.
Peace through strength. The opposite of the last four years. That's my view. Take it or leave it.