> In a Truth Social post on March 30, Trump warned that the U.S. would obliterate "all of their Electric Generating Plants, Oil Wells and Kharg Island (and possibly all desalinization plants!), which we have purposefully not yet 'touched.'"
Iran was having a water crisis before all this, to the extent of considering relocating the capital city away from Tehran's current location. Bombing Iranian water infrastructure will kill a lot of civilians, just as similar things happened in the Yemeni civil war (which Iran is a participant in). It's disheartening how much the prospect of mass murder is met with a shrug.
> AFAIK there is no exemption that says it is OK to commit war crimes if the other side does.
Of course not, but I still think the expectation that someone doesn't commit war crimes against you disappears relatively quickly when you're openly and proudly admitting you'll open to violating the rules of war and saying international humanitarian law doesn't matter.
> Wasn’t that in response to Trump posting that he’d hit theirs?
It's Iran. They haven't been following international law since 1979. That isn't an excuse to commit war crimes against them. But Iran really doesn't have any legs to stand on when it comes to complaining about targeting civilian infrastructure–they and their proxies have been doing this for decades.
>They haven't been following international law since 1979.
History doesn't start in 1979. Why not go back to 1953? Overthrowing another country's elected government is no more conscionable under international law.
This "both sides" game does not carry much weight when one side, the US and Britain, made the bad faith move on Iran first.
Stubbing one's toe and complaining "both sides" - the pebble and me.
Complaining I am being hit back because I hit first, does not elicit support. Especially, when one is less than forthcoming about who made the move on a sovereign country first. Made a move just because that country had resources you are interested in.
If you want the resource then buy it. Norway nationalised it's oil, Iran had equal sovereign right to do so.
You and I agree on many things. This one is not one of them.
> This "both sides" game does not carry much weight when one side, the US and Britain, made the bad faith move on Iran first
Trying to disentangle who did what first in the Middle East is a fool's errand. Practically any living human can trace descendence to someone who was harmed by any other group in that region because that's where the first civilisation was born and almost every one after it had cause for crossroads.
> Complaining I am being hit back because I hit first, does not elicit support
If one dude stabs another, they're at fault. If that dude stabs the first one back, I'm sympathetic to their cause of action but not how they prosecuted it.
> Norway nationalised it's oil, Iran had equal sovereign right to do so
If Iran nationalised its oil and then didn't go on a vendetta against Israel, together with various spawned proxy groups dotting the region, every one of their neighbors wouldn't be standing by today while they get pummeled.
> Trying to disentangle who did what first in the Middle East is a fool's errand.
Not at all and we are talking Iran not ME in general. Your sentence recalls to the mind that famous quote by Upton Sinclair about self imposed lack of comprehension.
It's ridiculous to think of a just prosecution when only one side is held accountable and the other gets hegemony enforced immunity.
When Iran nationalised their oil US used a military coup to upend their parliamentary democracy and place a puppet dictator in place, who among other things ran torture camps for dissenters. Iran's action are a retaliation against US and its proxies who have meddled and attacked Iran's sovereign destiny and financial health.
Sort of? I don't think that's really how war crimes work. Unless we're objectively in eye-for-an-eye territory, in which case we're not really talking about international law anymore. (To be clear, I think everyone talking about international law in this conflict is posturing. We've been collectively setting new norms for years, and between Russia, China and America, the rules seem to have inched closer to total war.)
It doesn't matter. Killing 34 something children like Hamas did vs 20 000 something children like Israel did in the same conflict.
Or threatening some water facility in a country with functioning air defense vs threatening entire population of 92 million with complete anihilation ("A whole civilization will die tonight" like Trump just said on behalf of all americans - credible threat from a nuclear superpower with enough nukes to spare), in a country where they can't really defend against this other than spreading the costs on enemy-allied countries.
There's bad, and there's 100x worse. And yeah, people should focus on stopping the 100x worse first, is my belief.
> people should focus on stopping the 100x worse first
That's fair. When I see conflicts like this, I tend to sit back and observe. There are enough conflicts on the planet where both sides are not being bastards, and where the diffences in scale of bastardly doesn't clearly map to differences in capability (versus will).
My personal opinion is that, it's because with the previous political and cultural trends, West had (maybe still has) actually quite high chances of collapsing and falling in the long term due to its own indecisiveness, lots of words mixed a lack of actions against coordinated and targeted efforts of Russia, Iran, Venezuela, Belarus, Cuba, China, Syria and North Korea.
I remember national state TV in Russia talking about "we are ready to nuke United States if needed" in 2014 [1].
So, domestically, government made sure people believe that the West is the mortal enemy and we were are already at some kind of cold war since Crimea annexation, it's just West didn't notice, seems like.
Then, there were also artifical immigration crisis at EU borders created by Russia and Belarus.
And many other various hybrid and asymmetrical attacks.
So, USA recognized the danger and started dismantling the problem piece by piece, to ensure a long term peace and safety of its people. Could it be better organized and coordinated with allies? Probably, yes, but the meaning stays.
If the west collapses it will be because of its internal problems. Inefficiency, bad government, inequality.
I think you are right that the West is complacent about its enemies because it cannot really shake the belief in its superiority that came from winning the cold war and dominating the world in the decades after, I just do not think that is the biggest threat.
> Russia, Iran, Venezuela, Belarus, Cuba, China, Syria and North Korea.
Putting these all in the same list conflates very different situations.
- Big actual threat with body count: Russia.
- Russian proxies: Syria (very lethal, but mostly within Syria, not a "threat to the west", complicated by Daesh and AQ)
- Nasty autocracy but stable cold war: NK
- Autocracy, but largely minding their own business and with no real capability to threaten: Cuba, Venezuela
- Major trading partner: China
> USA recognized the danger and started dismantling the problem piece by piece
Trump era has systematically downplayed the threat from Russia. And let's not forget how many members of Trump campaign staff were jailed due to Russian influence.
Is Russia really a threat? It has a small economy. Its no threat at all to the US, and could be easily be beaten by the European NATO countries. It has struggled to take on just Ukraine with western backing.
China has a far bigger economy and far bigger armed forces. It has a history of aggression and has border disputes with multiple countries.
I strongly suspect that people who downplay the risk from China have not yet internalised the fact that no-white countries are powerful too now.
The airliner shootdown? The polonium poisonings? Miscellaneous sabotage attempts in Europe? In addition to, you know, the active war.
There's a lot of things that China "might" do but hasn't so far translated into significant violence, beyond the low-intensity border dispute in the mountains with India. Do they have power? Yes. Are they making threats? Other than a war of words with Japan, not really. What is this "history of aggression"?
Between China and the US, only one of those two has made threats to the territorial integrity of Europe.
> So, USA recognized the danger and started dismantling the problem piece by piece, to ensure a long term peace and safety of its people. Could it be better organized and coordinated with allies? Probably, yes, but the meaning stays.
By becoming part of the problem? Trump threatening to invade Greenland was a wake-up call for Europe. Actively supporting forces that want to tear down democracy in Europe isn’t particularly helpful either.
If we become like China and Russia then why is our civilization in any way better?
Iranian proxies are responsible for well over 1,000 American deaths since 1979, and there were dozens of foiled plots on American soil and hundreds of individual militia attacks in Iraq and Syria, directed by Iran.
For reference, how many times has the US interfered with Iran's government and how many people in Iran has the US killed since 1979? That's the only way to get a fair view of this discussion. Just wondering if all this happened in a vacuum or, god forbid, Iran maybe has some reason to dislike the US.
When the comment is a response to another that justifies current attacks on Iran because Irani proxies killed US, it matters a big F'ing deal that those were in retaliation of the US historically scuttling Iranian parliamentary democracy and killing 50K Iranians by way of chemical munitions alone through its proxy.
Saying “what about the US attacking Iran?” does not change the above being false. In fact the US attacking Iran does not change the above false either.
Even if we accept both things as true:
1. Iran has historically attacked the US
2. The US has historically destabilized/attacked Iran
It doesn’t change the fact that “Iran does not use any of these (proxy groups) to attack America” is a false statement.
Skip me with your emotional arguments because I’ll just think you’re posturing and just trying to advance your agenda :-)
There is a difference between "attack" (that has a connotation of being unprovoked and in bad faith) and "retaliation" against acts of drawing first blood.
More so if those primary attacks had 50K killed by way of proxies (100K according to more realistic estimates).
Sometimes, what one dishes out, comes back. If it does, rest of the world thinks it is only fair. Yes Iran has been retaliating, very weakly, to counterbalance attacks on itself by the US and its proxies.
There is not much doubt on who acted in bad faith first.
The US hurting its toe by kicking a stone and then complaining that it is the stone that attacked is not a good argument.
It's like saying "A home owner shot armed burglar in self defense," then crying "self defense is whataboutism! That home owner needs to face mob justice!" Nah. Those tactics of yours simply do not work anymore. Everyone sees through it. Iran wouldn't be doing any of this if they weren't constantly being bombed and attacked and having their leaders assassinated. The strait was open 2 months ago and had no issues. Two countries decided to ruin that and they deserve to face the consequences.
this was a reply to people saying "Iran is not attacking the US". It is of course convenient to bend this discussion into a different direction, but this was a reply to blind propaganda that sees only one side as responsible for bad things.
[To the downvoter, downvoting is not going to change the historical facts]
It was the US that upended Iranian parliamentary democracy with a military coup, sponsored chemical weapons attacks on Irani population (through its proxy Iraq). This killed some 30k to 50k by way of chemical attacks alone. Credible sources estimate 100K killed by these chemical weapons attacks alone.
US shot down their passenger jet. US has imposed crippling sanctions that have decimated the economic well being of the country compared to what it could have been.
Iran Air Flight 655 was an international scheduled passenger flight from Tehran to Dubai via Bandar Abbas that was shot down on 3 July 1988 by two surface-to-air missiles fired by USS Vincennes, a United States Navy warship. The missiles hit the Iran Air aircraft, an Airbus A300, while it was flying its usual route over Iran's territorial waters in the Persian Gulf, shortly after the flight departed its stopover location, Bandar Abbas International Airport. All 290 people on board were killed. No apologies yet.
Talking about Iranian proxies alone is one-sided if you don't consider what US-Israel proxies have been doing to them. US Israel have inflicted 10 to 100X more Irani deaths than what Iran has done in retaliation.
You are either ignorant or deliberately underplaying that. Most likely the latter.
Only westerners can be bad actors or at all in historic events racism of the charts? It takes two to tango and iran is dancing its heart out.. and could have had the most peacefull life, if its religion would not involve destroying all "unbelievers" in the middle east - first and foremost aimed at israel.
An illuminating documentary. Everyone should give it a watch to understand the Zionist belief system.
There is very little room to doubt who the bad actor is and was. No matter how many canards you can try and thrust, how many attempts you make to color this as a religious holy war.
That the Islamic revolution was and is against Jews is a lie. In any case the Islamic revolution happened because of excesses by the US sponsored Shah who was put in charge after the US dismantled Iran's parliamentary democracy.
Even today Tehran hosts Dr. Sapir Hospital and Charity Center, a Jewish charity hospital, the largest charity among the religious minorities in Iran. It is doing well, thank you.
Ayatollah Khomeini himself wrote a personal note thanking the hospital for its help after the revolution succeeded.
Synagogues in Tehran are doing very well in the Islamic regime, thank you. Except for one that US+Israel bombed recently in Tehran.
This is in contrast to Israeli false flags, such as the Lavon affair and Baghdad synagogue bombings by Israel to drive a rift between Jews and the country they were residing in. Israel has a long documented history of bombing synagogues in other countries in false flag operations.
In fact Irani Jews have often criticized Israel when Israel has acted against Palestinians. Chief Rabbi of Iran https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yehuda_Gerami has denounced Zionist and Israeli policies.
""" It comes as a surprise to many visitors to discover that Iran, a country so hostile to Israel and with a reputation for intolerance, is home to a small but vibrant Jewish community that is an officially recognized religious minority under Iran's 1979 Islamic Constitution.
"Khomeini didn't mix up our community with Israel and Zionism - he saw us as Iranians," says Haroun Yashyaei, a film producer and chairman of the Central Jewish Community in Iran. """
Could he say anything else or other?
He must sing the dhimi and hostage song for his life depends on it. I know what happens to the ghetto after the friday prayer. Pieces be upon the true believers..
"When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you.
If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the Lord your God gives you from your enemies. This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby.
However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy[a] them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the Lord your God has commanded you"
Not to mention Israel's acts on Middle Eastern Jewish people
Interesting to see this chemical attack talking point suddenly in the last week. But yet posters here will claim the bad actors are pushing 'zionist' talking points and ignore when an obviously coordinated Iranian talking point is suddenly injected into every thread within a week.
The us is the peace guarantor for maritime trade in the region. Its the protector of several oil powers. When the hoothi shoot on ships, they hit the us.
America never invaded Greenland. Nevertheless, we're facing blowback because we threatened it.
Iran has been chanting "death to America" for decades. That isn't casus belli. Not by a long shot. But pretending Iran hasn't been playing the part of belligerent for years is rewriting history.
30K to 50K Iranians killed by chemical weapons attacks by US proxy, Iraq. Credible sources estimate 100K killed and 30K-50K is a conservative lowball estimate.
This is an active unhealed wound in Iran. Families of the dead still grieve those killed in cemeteries and graves that are there in almost all their major cities.
Iran has every reason to not like the US which has been destabilising and killing and crippling them economically for several decades.
Iran Air Flight 655 was an international scheduled passenger flight from Tehran to Dubai via Bandar Abbas that was shot down on 3 July 1988 by two surface-to-air missiles fired by USS Vincennes, a United States Navy warship. The missiles hit the Iran Air aircraft, an Airbus A300, while it was flying its usual route over Iran's territorial waters in the Persian Gulf, shortly after the flight departed its stopover location, Bandar Abbas International Airport. All 290 people on board were killed.
Iran's targeting strategy has been a capability restrained tit for tat, for the most part. This is true except for attacks on other gulf states right after US-Israel decapitation strike.
Blame is a weird word for geopolitics. I think Iran fucked up hitting those targets pre-emptively. Someone at home had to show their hard-liner boss that they were just as hard-line as he is. So they did something macho. The consequences be damned.
The mirroring of dysfunction on each side of this war is uncanny.
