Imagine negotiating with Hitler to give up his V2 missiles and nuclear plans while the Holocaust was taking place. History will judge us for negotiating (and therefore, legitimizing) with the islamic regime that's occupied Iran for 47 years.
"Genocidal" is not an order of magnitude; it's a description of purpose. What's going on in Iran is an atrocity, but it's not "genocidal."
>History will judge us for negotiating
We're not the world police.
Oh, well that's alright then. Hey fellers, we got off on a grammatical technicality.
> We're not the world police.
It's your mess, now clean it up.
>It's your mess, now clean it up.
The US is under no obligation to the people of Iran whatsoever. If we take action in Iran, it will be solely to our benefit, and it may or may not improve those peoples' lives. In all likelihood, it will be another Libya or Afghanistan situation in which we take what we want and leave a power vacuum in our wake.
Yes sir.
On a second thought - who the fuck are you to tell the country with the biggest dick what to do. We'll be putting 100% tariffs on you.
we share a planet
That has been the bargain since WWII though. Pax Americana meant the US owned and enforced a global order, in return international trade and finance ran on its platform. Most Americans can't fathom how bad the alternative is to not being the world police.
Well, not anymore after that speech from the Canadian Prime Minister!
Then why did you overthrow their elected government in 1953? Which also set the country firmly on the path to the current regime.
I imagine you saying this in 1940, to a german jew refugee. Would you do it? Would you say this to a jewish person in WWII, to justify non-action?
I find it surprising that you're troubled. The West helped Israel with its genocide in Gaza; why did you expect that the West would intervene in what's happening the Iran, which by death count is significantly smaller?
In 48 hours, the islamic regime in Iran massacred more than 40,000 protestors (and left tens of thousands of people blinded/wounded, often "finishing them off" by raiding hospitals...). Some figures even show more than 40,000, but even assuming the low-park, that's 833 people per hour, or 13 people per minute who got killed.
Whatever Israel did (to defend itself) was by no means even near those numbers.
Now that's a record fast jump between "it never happened" and "they deserved it".
Also funny the wording "whatever they did", as if it's a mystery.
> Whatever Israel did (to defend itself) was by no means even near those numbers.
Israel killed about 300,000 people in the first month. Sure, it's a lower count per day, what a low bar.
From now on, every time anyone says anything about Iran, I'll be pushing the narrative that "whatever Iran did, it was to defend itself".
Edit to add: Also, Israel was actually attacked, and civilians were raped, kidnapped, and murdered. Did any of the protestors in Iran kill, rape, or murder any of members of the regime who subsequently slaughtered them?
Just to be clear. You're arguing that if a country is attacked, it's ok to kill civilians that are unrelated to the attack? Or are you arguing that those 300,000 were somehow involved in the killing of the 3,000 Israelis that died in the Hamas attack?
How on earth did you get that from my comment? Can you think of a more charitable way to interpret what I said?
So you're not saying that what Israel is doing is less bad due to the fact that it was attacked? So what are you saying then?
I guess that no, I can't find a more charitable way to interpret what you said.
> Israel was actually attacked
I was responding to your claim that Iran was defending itself... Whether or not Israel responded disproportionately to October 7 (it did), I don't think it's fair to say Iran's actions are "self-defense" in the same way that Israel's war was self-defense.
If a country is attacked, and defends itself, are you saying it should stop any form of defense because a civilian can die?
If this is the logic, then what would prevent armies from using human shields?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_and_gender-based_violen...
Hannibal directive: https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2024-07-07/ty-article-ma...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hannibal_Directive#Claimed_use...
> The British historian Martin Gilbert believes that "many non-Jews resented the round-up", his opinion being supported by German witness Dr. Arthur Flehinger who recalls seeing "people crying while watching from behind their curtains". Rolf Dessauer recalls how a neighbor came forward and restored a portrait of Paul Ehrlich that had been "slashed to ribbons" by the Sturmabteilung. "He wanted it to be known that not all Germans supported Kristallnacht."
This passage is particulary eerie IMHO, since I've been reading "I don't condone this" of current world events over and over.
> In 1938, just after Kristallnacht, the psychologist Michael Müller-Claudius interviewed 41 randomly selected Nazi Party members on their attitudes towards racial persecution. Of the interviewed party members, 63% expressed extreme indignation against it, 5% expressed approval, and the remaining 32% were noncommittal.
Also particurlarly eerie to me. Yet the regime went on.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kristallnacht [2] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%C3%BCsseldorfer_Abkommen_(19...
But it was asked what else the West could do beyond what it’s already doing.
It might be possible to do a targetted kidnapping/assassination without provoking a war. Or it might not be. Such actions become unpredictable fast.
Most action from the West is likely to make things worse. Can you give a scenario where that's not the case?
WWII did not happen because of the Holocaust and nations around the world being outraged at that. In truth, the US and many other countries rejected Jewish refugees from Germany
While children in Gaza starve, ICE roams the streets killing even non-immigrants, and Greenland is in the crosshairs, white, professional-managerial put their focus on replacing Iranian sovereignty with being under the West's boot, for very liberal, humanitarian reasons of course.
The black and white "west is bad" narrative you're being fed isn't accurate.
Just trying to understand.
For three main reasons.
1. Culturally Iranians are way more aligned with west.
2. Western imperialism results in more democracy. Not 100%, but not this bad.
3. Economically countries under west's influence do much better. Iran is extremely poor right now.
Why do you think China and Russia are causing the economic instability? I thought it was because of US sanctions and currency manipulation.
Some "west bad" rhetoric is that the fall of communism was orchestrated by Americans and not of organic local origin.
In reality the communist regime protected by Russian/ soviet violence had no legitimacy or support from the population.
Perhaps Poles could not free themselves without the western , maybe Cia played active role in organizing solidarity movement.
If this is true then we Poles are forever grateful for orchestrating regime change in Poland in 1989.
I don't get—never have, probably never will—painting the Islamic Republic of Iran as saviours, freedom fighters, or the last bulwark of an axis of resistance.
If the Boston strangler was anti-imperialist, would you claim he was a hero? It feels like you would.
Just because they have a shitty government doesn't mean we (USA) have the right to their oil.
USA indeed doesn’t have any right to their oil, but that doesn’t mean they couldn’t help.
Westerns work to slaughter the secular left in a country, then use that as their entitlement to take over the country - "there is no secular force to take over".
This just happened in Syria - the West forced out a secular leader to replace him with a now celebrated al-Qaeda leader who the US had a $10 million bounty on fourteen months ago.
Even the parent article reports first-hand that the Iranian regime is now labelling protesters as terrorists and calls for their arrests.
This, combined with the draught and economic collapse, has pushed the Iranian people towards revolt.
This is not the fault of Israel, America, Trump, Greenland, white people, or any other boogeyman. It's a feature of Iranian government, and the Iranian people want change.
[0]: https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2026/jan/27/i...
[1]: https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2025/07/iran-horrifyi...
[2]: https://persecution.exmuslims.org/countries/iran/
[3]: https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/10/14/iran-new-hijab-law-adds-...
[4]: https://www.equaldex.com/region/iran
[5]: https://time.com/7357635/more-than-30000-killed-in-iran-say-...
Bessent said so at Davos:
"President Trump ordered our Treasury and our OFAC division (Office of Foreign Asset Control) to put maximum pressure on Iran. And it's worked, because in December, their economy collapsed. [...] So this is why people took to the street. This is economic statecraft". https://youtu.be/VQQXLnXlWqY?t=1722
Is this how America helps dissidents? Make them so miserable they can't bear it anymore? Anyways, it never works. It just makes civilians more miserable and the government more repressive. Look at Cuba or North Korea.
No, that's the regime's excuse. Most electricity in the country is used by the regime to mine crypto (!).
This is incorrect. For example, the deal with Iran did not allow for surprise inspections.
The information and sources are there for you to search, and it's up to you to determine who you find credible and why.
The same intelligence community bragging that they're embedded among the protestors and engaging in covert-action (oxymoronic as it sounds) to bring about regime change?
https://archive.is/20251230221603/https://www.jpost.com/midd...
https://x.com/mikepompeo/status/2007180411638620659 https://x.com/mikepompeo/status/2007180411638620659
But if it's 5-10-20 or even more k, how much difference does it make? The crime of mass killing and collective punishment is still as gruesome either way
https://archive.ph/2026.01.25-142822/https://time.com/735763...
> The 30,000 figure is also far beyond tallies being compiled by activists methodically assigning names to the dead.
The official government estimate is still 3,117 btw.
The truth is we'll likely never know for sure the real number and any outlet reporting anything else without qualifications is being dishonest.
Gazan health authorities were releasing the names of their dead, and this was met with great skepticism and qualification in Israel and the West (until this week when Israel just accepted at least tens of thousands died).
Random, inflated numbers from anonymous sources pop up on Iran and they're instantly quoted as fact.
Also - some of the rebels have guns and have been using them, so some of these dead are from shootouts.
Time Magazine is reporting[0] that local Iranian health officials have given that number.
[0]: https://time.com/7357635/more-than-30000-killed-in-iran-say-...
This here is the same death toll in two days.
Do you mean in person?
So who is Raha Nik-Andish (the author)? I don't really know. It's a pseudonym for someone who reported left Iran for 14 years (to France maybe?) but went back last year. At least they seem to be in Iran. I'm dubious about the calls for the Shah. It could be a proxy for wanting an end to the current regime. That would be fair. But nobody serious wants a return of the Shah, who would be the original Shah's son, Raza Pahlavi, who, for the record, is an Israeli asset [3].
It is a desired goal of US and Israeli foreign policy to collapse the Iranian regime and turn it into a failed state like Somalia.
Israeli agitators are very active in Iran. This isn't a conspiracy. They come right out and say it [3]. Mossad uses a network of Israelis who speak perfect Farsi and exploits Afghan refugees in Iran [4].
This actually reminds me a lot of Cuba. There are a bunch of displaced Cubans who hated Castro. You have to consider the source. Many of them fled because they were allied to Batista. This has become almost comical where, for example, US Senator Ted Cruz hates Castro and communists because Batista forced his family to flee Cuba [6].
So there are a lot of Iranians in diaspora who likewise have ties to the Shah's regime.
And let's not forget why Iran is a fundamentalist Iranian republic: the US toppled Iran's government (largely at the urging of the British) in 1953 after Mosaddegh "nationalized" their own oil. The Shah became a brutal dictator and when it became clear he was finished, the US instead propped up then-exiled Khomenei to win [7] for fear that the Communists would win and Iran would fall into the Soviet sphere of influence.
What followed was a decade of the Iran-Iraq war where the US used another puppet, Saddam Hussein, to foment a war with Iran that cost millions of lives.
And of course we have decades of sanctions, which is basically just starving people and hoping for the best.
But sure, the SUS really cares about dead Iranian protestors.
[1]: https://actionnetwork.org/letters/new-york-times-screams-wit...
[2]: https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/poland-invest...
[3]: https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2025/7/3/son-of-former-sh...
[4]: https://www.jpost.com/middle-east/iran-news/article-881733
[5]: https://minutemirror.com.pk/israel-recruited-afghan-refugees...
[6]: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/I2AdbLDVb0Q
[7]: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jun/10/ayatollah-khom...
bigyabai•1h ago
A familiar tactic to many governments around the world.
indoordin0saur•1h ago
ekjhgkejhgk•1h ago
> Iran is operating in at a scale so far beyond anything ever seen in the US that it's completely dishonest to compare the two.
The person you're responding to didn't mention the US, but it's telling that that's where your mind goes to.
mikestew•59m ago
jonas21•54m ago
mikestew•45m ago
aprilthird2021•37m ago
cinntaile•33m ago
reliabilityguy•18m ago