Yes, and that was my point. The American public doesn’t have great insight into what’s happening inside Iran, and there’s definitely a nontrivial insurgency movement there. When this kicked off Friday night, I was hopeful the administration knew more than we did and the CIA and Mossad had been able to organize an opposition capable of rising to the moment. In the absence of that, this whole war is idiotic. And it’s now clear no such planning had happened.
Oh yeah, I hear you. I think we agree- I'm just doing a really poor job of articulating it. We almost certainly aren't in any true danger of being overwhelmed militarily by Iran, or even being defeated militarily by Iran. But from a strategic standpoint, initiating a war like this when our own top military brass was warning of the dangers of it, and doing so when we are at critically low levels of interceptor missiles, is a huge blunder. It's going to enable Iran to inflict much greater damage and casualties than it otherwise would/should have. And from an optics standpoint, it does not bode well for future conflicts with China who is undoubtedly watching and studying this closely. I also think we're going to find a lot more difficulty moving forward in having other countries allow us to maintain military bases on their soil which will greatly diminish our tactical abilities to wage war or respond abroad.
Fine but we live in a reality defined by attention grabbing communication. If you do not have the stomach for that reality you are unilaterally disarming.
If true, which it almost certainly is not, that would be batshit stupid.
Partly true. While SAVAK was wicked, the educated pushed for a pre-Islamic identity that emphasized Persian heritage and secularity. This greatly disturbed an element of the population. There was a real effort to "westernize". Women right's were fundamentally expanded and many of those reforms hold(voting, marriage rights, the right to education). There was also a huge distinction between rural advancement vs urban advancement with the city people earning much, much more. My take is that the 60s/70s were much more progressive than the post Islamic Revolution environment. That's the Iran the youth want to return to. Secularity and individual rights within a welfare state.
I wouldn't bet my money against them doing something monumentally stupid again.
I'm not saying I don't have the stomach for it. I welcome it, as I said in my first post. I wasn't using the term "mean" to suggest I disagreed with the tweet. We should be meaner to Republic elected officials. I just think that it won't accomplish much on its own. It is a step in the right direction, but only a step. I'm just responding to the original poster saying that tweets like that "are precisely what has missing from the Democratic Party." it's one thing that has bee missing. You are right that grabbing attention is one thing Dems need to do better. But that still leaves the matter of what to do with the attention once you get it.
Which is funny since the administration oppose that in the here and now in the US.
Duh. But that isn't the Iran the youth want. They don't know that Iran.
It's transactional, so there is no strategy...in any traditional American sense.
Yes, and don't forget that the Trump admin scrapped and/or undermined a number of the "soft power" tools that would have been useful in actually aiding an Iranian resistance, like Voice for America and Radio Free Europe.
I don't think anyone is disputing that. But that doesn't mean 60s/70s Iran was anything resembling "liberal."
Because Trump is incapable of strategy beyond the whim of the moment.
I'm not suggesting it was liberal. I don't think many countries then were, including us. But to equate the Shah's regime to the Islamic Republic is telling.
Another quote: