[QuickTidal]

Abyss, on 15 July 2026 - 04:07 PM, said:

At the same time they also wanted to continue supporting terrorist groups, repressing their own people, murdering dissidents, controlling the straight of hormuz, and developing nuclear weapons. And anyone who believes for a second that they will ever actually stop doing all of those things - short of a complete regime change - is kidding themselves massively.

The JCPOA who had regular inspections prior to Trump and Bibi's nonsense affirms the bolded was not happening. Remember that Israel has been telling me that Iran is 2 weeks away from a nuclear weapon since I was a child in the 1980's. It's warmongering propaganda.

And the Strait was not being actively messed with before Trump and Bibi's nonsense. Passage was free and clear for all.

the rest I'll give you...but I reiterate Regime change by the USA has not worked out in most of the 167 times they'd done it in their history...it's almost always worse for the inhabitants of those countries. If Iran is ever to change regimes, or get back to what they were BEFORE the USA started fucking with them for the crime of daring to want their oil resources to benefit their citizens...that will need to happen organically inside the country and not from external pressure, and not especially from a country as self-interested as the USA.

No one in the USA who talks about caring about the people of Iran, give a flying shit about the people of Iran.

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: Today, 05:10 PM

[Illuyankas]

Hell one of the big worries was that the Ayatollah they initially assassinated was the (relatively) big dove and was going to be replaced by a hard-liner who would definitely not be willing to make a deal, especially now they have conclusive proof that the US cannot be trusted to stick to their word.

Also, Iran getting nukes is objectively their smartest move from a defense standpoint, just from the risk of the US getting even a slightly more competent warhawk down the line. The difference in how North Korea and Ukraine have fared is proof enough of that.

[QuickTidal]

Illuyankas, on 15 July 2026 - 06:16 PM, said:

Also, Iran getting nukes is objectively their smartest move from a defense standpoint, just from the risk of the US getting even a slightly more competent warhawk down the line.

The argument could also be made that the US position that allowed them to have the nuclear stockpile that they do to begin with post WWII/Cold War was that they would be a benevolent ally to the rest of us...well that lasted only as long as the US didn't elect a criminal pedo buffoon...and now I fear HIM using them more than I do anyone else.

That piece of orange trash having access to Nuclear weapons is WAY more threatening to me than anyone else having them. The rules about the nuclear football is that all the President needs to do to launch them is for the SecDef (fucking Hegseth) to confirm it's the president who is giving the order. He can't stop him. He just confirms the president gave the order. And then the only thing standing in the way of him nuking anywhere after that would be Generals on the ships with the nukes disobeying orders from their commander in chief...that's a super thin ass line between the world and Armageddon.

[Abyss]

QuickTidal, on 15 July 2026 - 05:09 PM, said:

Abyss, on 15 July 2026 - 04:07 PM, said:

At the same time they also wanted to continue supporting terrorist groups, repressing their own people, murdering dissidents, controlling the straight of hormuz, and developing nuclear weapons. And anyone who believes for a second that they will ever actually stop doing all of those things - short of a complete regime change - is kidding themselves massively.

The JCPOA who had regular inspections prior to Trump and Bibi's nonsense affirms the bolded was not happening. Remember that Israel has been telling me that Iran is 2 weeks away from a nuclear weapon since I was a child in the 1980's. It's warmongering propaganda.

There's a yes/no to that... i agree that over decades the threat has been wildly exaggerated or just flat out lied about by various parties at various times for self-serving reasons. But i am also of the view that it's been real at points. This is Iran we're talking about. They have every reason to want nukes, every reason to do whatever it takes to get them, and have flat out said they fully intend to pursue nuclear materials 'for peaceful purposes'. And if you believe that, coming from them, i have a lovely stretch of beach right on the Strait to sell you.

Quote

And the Strait was not being actively messed with before Trump and Bibi's nonsense. Passage was free and clear for all.

Accurate. And now they have stated they intend to charge a fee, but less than Trump, so there's that. Lovely bit of turnabout that was, actually.

Quote

the rest I'll give you...but I reiterate Regime change by the USA has not worked out in most of the 167 times they'd done it in their history...it's almost always worse for the inhabitants of those countries. If Iran is ever to change regimes, or get back to what they were BEFORE the USA started fucking with them for the crime of daring to want their oil resources to benefit their citizens...that will need to happen organically inside the country and not from external pressure, and not especially from a country as self-interested as the USA.

No one in the USA who talks about caring about the people of Iran, give a flying shit about the people of Iran.

We're on the same ground there.

[the broken]

Quote

It's not hard to understand... Iran wanted the big bad superpower to stop bombing the crap out of their military and assets.<br style="color: rgb(255, 255, 255); font-size: 13px; background-color: rgb(34, 34, 34);">
At the same time they also wanted to continue supporting terrorist groups, repressing their own people, murdering dissidents, controlling the straight of hormuz, and developing nuclear weapons. And anyone who believes for a second that they will ever actually stop doing all of those things - short of a complete regime change - is kidding themselves massively.

Way to do that would have been to ask Hezbollah or Hamas to launch without having to do it themselves. But they struck ships in such a way as to invite a US response. Sticking to the MOU, fragile as it was, was the better move, but they did a strike anyway.

Quote

Hell one of the big worries was that the Ayatollah they initially assassinated was the (relatively) big dove and was going to be replaced by a hard-liner who would definitely not be willing to make a deal, especially now they have conclusive proof that the US cannot be trusted to stick to their word.

So did that happen? Who is in charge? The New Ayatollah if he is alive is hiding in a bunker somewhere, who is holding the reins and what are their positions? This stuff is important, but the Western coverage keeps getting distracted by Trump and Mid-terms as though nothing else matters.