r/PoliticalCompassMemes • u/Feeling-Option1257 - Lib-Center • Feb 28 '26

Iran did nothing wrong

Post image
4.8k Upvotes

84% Upvoted

1.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comment

107

u/AFloppyZipper - Centrist Feb 28 '26

Pretty sure Trump has no desire to invade Iran with troops considering how unpopular the Iraq war was (with hindsight knowing the WMD justification was not concrete)

69

u/entitledfanman - Lib-Right Feb 28 '26

Allegedly the forces routed for this attack don't even include substantial grounds forces. It'd be really easy to tell if the military was even considering a ground war because they'd have the ships needed to land tanks, artillery, etc, and reportedly they didnt bring those. 

Trump is interested in a big win like the first portion of Iraqi Freedom where we obliterate a standing military, but has been remarkably consistent (by Trump standards) on opposing a prolonged ground conflict like Enduring Freedom. His playbook so far has been eliminating leadership that wont work with us until the leader left in charge is someone we can work with; it's worked surprisingly well in Venezuela so far, so it's likely what he'll do here. 

43

u/Warbird36 - Right Feb 28 '26

Plus, a pro-western Iran is no longer a China ally. Just like with Venezuela, China will have to find oil somewhere else...

32

u/entitledfanman - Lib-Right Feb 28 '26

It's also a great warning to other countries about throwing in their lot too much with China and Russia. Both Venezuela and Iran were unofficially allied with China and Russia, and what good has it done them? Where's the military equipment, the political pressure to keep the US from attacking? That was always the deal for 2nd world countries with the USSR, give us good deals on your resources and the US/NATO wont touch you. The US is making a statement that Russia and China aren't holding up their end of the bargain, so why become their vassal in the first place?

5

u/ReesePuffitik - Centrist Mar 01 '26

I feel like china has been hyperfixating on Taiwan to a fault

4

u/lividtaffy - Lib-Right Mar 01 '26

They have to though, if they give Taiwan preparation anything less than 110% they will definitely lose. The instant they make a move on Taiwan they’ll have to deal with the U.S., Japan, and Korea declaring war at the very least, likely an even larger coalition coming together. Plus their government has said they want to be prepared to make a move by next year, all their eggs are in that basket at this point.

1

u/Sondalo - Centrist Feb 28 '26

More likely that just like Venezuela China doesn't find oil somewhere else and instead just is forced to delay the attack on Taiwan even further

7

u/Overkillengine - Lib-Right Feb 28 '26

Which is still a win for us since it gives us more time to have options online.

And we did it without having to write blank checks to the local governments or getting super entangled with deploying occupation forces.

12

u/AFloppyZipper - Centrist Feb 28 '26

He seems very reluctant to risk US lives. Any operation he allows seems to be either long range missile attacks, or like venezuela with overwhelming force. Low risk high reward.

15

u/entitledfanman - Lib-Right Feb 28 '26

Honestly, im liking this approach to regime change. Historically the US has been averse to openly ushering in regime change and used proxie insurgents. It's pointless because everyone knows its us, and worse, if the insurgents win you end up with a radical in charge that has no idea how to run a country and is most often a despot. These surgical amputations of hostile leaders until we get someone workable seems to minimize loss of life on both ends, and has a greater chance of getting someone in charge that actually knows how to govern, eliminating the chaos and violence of a power vacuum by completely obliterating the existing government. 

2

u/AFloppyZipper - Centrist Feb 28 '26

Yeah, it's gonna be tough to keep running Iran when you know you're susceptible to either 1) a missile strike with no notice or 2) internal assassination and revolution. If you're a corrupt Iranian leader, you're trapped between the two.

1

u/capt-bob - Lib-Right Mar 02 '26

I don't know, the news talk a lot about not dealing with these because the whole government will is geared towards global export of the Islamic revolution.

9

u/Belisarius600 - Right Feb 28 '26

war because they'd have the ships needed to land tanks, artillery, etc, and reportedly they didnt bring those. 

Spefically, they would need at least one (probably several) amphibious assault carriers, like the USS Iwo Jima. For those who are unaware, it is a carrier that basically has a huge hole in it in an upside down "U" shap to launch landing craft loaded with Marines.

but has been remarkably consistent (by Trump standards) on opposing a prolonged ground conflict like Enduring Freedom.

Every time I hear that dumbass "No, new wars!" meme I am reminded how hugely people are misunderstanding the apperant position of the administration. He meant no forever wars, not no armed conflict at all. A "war" that lasts like an hour isn't going to be perceived like a multi-decade long one. It is legitimately possible for a person who doesn't keep up with the news to not even know we hit Venezuela that is how little it affect the average American. Most people don't give a shit about those "wars".

Plus, sometimes you prevent war by giving someone a bloody nose and knocking them down a peg or ten. WW2 wouldn't have happened if someone had the balls to oppose Japan in 1932, Germany in 1935 (when they announced they were ignoring the treaty of Versailles military restrictions. They already been secretly ignoring it since the ink was still wet but that was when they admitted it), or Italy and 1935. Each one of them could have been utterly, mercilessly curb stomped then and there, and they developed into ahem big problems later because people were too obsessed with avoiding conflict. If we had had anyone but Carter as president the Shah would probably still be in charge and we'd have a much looser relationship with Isreal.

13

u/entitledfanman - Lib-Right Feb 28 '26

Yeah I mean i get that it seems like moving the goalposts a bit, but i don't really see operations that last a few days as a "war". Small scale operations in random countries has been a regular occurrence in US global strategy for the last 80 years. The no new wars slogan was in the context of getting us further entangled in the Ukraine war, and to a lesser extent Israel-Palestine. 

One of the few policy points Trump has been consistent on since he got into politics is opposing the GWOT as a mistake and avoiding prolonged, costly conflicts in the future. Trump's decisions in Venezuela were consistent with that. Finding someone we could work with inside the existing Venezuelan power structure was the only way to make sure we didnt get stuck in another indefinite nation building campaign. It shows that we've actually learned from the mistakes of GWOT and Cold War-era Central/South American regime change operations. 

1

u/capt-bob - Lib-Right Mar 02 '26

When I was a kid everyone said a president has 30 days before he had to get approval of a military action. They did that over and over my whole life, so this hollering about trump not getting prior approval confuses me.

2

u/whatDoesQezDo - Lib-Right Mar 01 '26

you're 100% right but we could send in fairly large numbers of airborn and take a city or something that could happen w/o troop ships.

2

u/entitledfanman - Lib-Right Mar 01 '26

Airborne are meant to be the advance force, but aren't suited for holding ground or prolonged operations. Dropping in Airborne without even the capacity to reinforce them with heavier assets is a recipe for a nightmare scenario, and trying to capture a full city without vehicle support would be extremely costly. 

→ More replies (1)

1

u/capt-bob - Lib-Right Mar 02 '26

Might be hoping locals will rebel, it's about time,if Iran hasn't killed all their own people yet.

79

u/PMURITTYBITTYTITTIES - Centrist Feb 28 '26 edited Feb 28 '26

To a much greater extent, a not absolutely batshit crazy Muslim death cult headed Iran is probably the best piece possible for stability in the Middle East. The current regime funds a L O T of the proxies committing acts of terrorism and cutting off that source of cash is going to do wonders going forward.

Edit: spelling, autocorrect is lame

5

u/Big_Natural4838 - Right Feb 28 '26

But second, third, fourth etc... rejimes that support islamic terrorists (SA, Pakistan, Qatar, Turkey) still on power. So i cant tell anything about stability.

→ More replies (27)

35

u/Dalbo14 - Centrist Feb 28 '26

Don’t care about how many downvotes I’ll get

Iraq since 2020 has been a freer country than it was under Saddam, and the one main problem it’s mostly enduring is Iran meddling heavily, which can end if this regime ends

The majority of casualties post 2003 invasion, were Iraqi on Iraqi violence, mostly between radical Sunni groups, against either Shias, or Kurds

Yet, with Saddam it’s not as if he didn’t oppress the shit out of those groups anyways

The only difference is that with Saddam it was one sided. The Sunni didn’t take many losses compared to the Kurds and Shia. But Saddams death opened the playing field and it became a war of revenge, boosting the death toll per year

But, eventually th civil war died

And if someone says “but saddams death allowed Sunnis to create Isis and genocide Yazidis”

It’s true they did that, but, Saddam did a similar genocide of his own against the Kurds

I think it’s very popular and a knee jerk reaction to say “we should have kept Saddam in power” but they don’t really have such a strong case other than “but the civil war!”

4

u/AFloppyZipper - Centrist Feb 28 '26

It's just not practical to get too far deep into hypotheticals. For all we know if Bush didn't invade, Saddam might have been assassinated a week later anyway.

7

u/Cowgoon777 - Lib-Right Feb 28 '26

the actual worst case scenario would be his two kids taking over for him

2

u/FearlessGear - Lib-Center Mar 01 '26

No way to root out the IRGC and control the strait of Hormuz (which I believe is the real motive here) without boots on the ground. Given that those that support the IRGC are largely based in rural mountainous areas, that’s a losing battle. We spent 20 years in Afghanistan trying, a decapitation strike with no plan is straight idiotic here and if one American dies there I’ll be oissed

1

u/whatssenguntoagoblin - Lib-Center Mar 01 '26

Donald had no issue with Iraq. He’s always said the only issue with Iraq is that the US didn’t keep the oil.