Wait, what? The only people linking Iran and Gaza are the ayatollahs ... and let's be clear: hamas murders more Palestinians than Israel does, which I'm sure Iran actually knows and sees as a good thing.

> There is this belief that the US is a benevolent superpower who is forced by the brutality of foreign regimes to intervene on humanitarian grounds. But history says otherwise.

There's obvious responses (and I'll ignore if that belief is real or not. It's not):

1) the US was indeed forced. In the sense that it's blatantly obvious that current and past administrations would have massively preferred to not interfere. Oh AND when the US says it was forced into action, that's far more true than when Putin says it. Or when the ayatollahs say it for that matter.

2) As for motivations, are they pure? No. The US and the rest of the world, when push comes to shove, is dependent on most countries participating in international trade, and has gone into wars for that. And yes, pushing oil extraction is part of that. Iran is a brutal regime that is not only extremely aggressive against it's own population but is also in a great position and trying to block trade through the Persian gulf. They wouldn't even use that to get some tax out of it. Given the chance, they would use their position to block trade with half the middle east, to conquer it. That's the mullahs wet dream, the goal.

3) And let's be real here: when it comes to US wars, they massively improved the fate of the people in the countries that were targeted. It was indeed brutal regimes that were targeted. So the humanitarian aspect is real, even if the counterargument is true: does the US attack because of humanitarian problems? No.

But compared to the other side, there's the question do US enemies create humanitarian problems as a military tactic? Generally, yes. Especially hamas, of course, and in their case, on a large scale.

4) What are the alternatives? Russia? China? They are worse than the US was at it's worst, centuries back. And the EU countries? When they did care, they had racist, colonial brutality against locals and have now moved to total indifference. Let's politely say "no help there".

5) That the motivations of the US are in question at all, and that we are genuinely discussing them inside the US, by itself, is moral. The motivations of the opposing sides ... nobody even questions how evil they are. Anybody who questions that Iran wants to conquer ... Iran has done that, brutally. Google "plastic keys to heaven", and learn how you can use minority primary school children as cheap demining equipment. Clearly, allah-approved, according to ayatollahs, who I'm told have to study islamic theology for 20 years minimum to get that job.

6) ICE might be bad, but it's not comparable to the ayatollahs. Not even remotely.

7) letting mullahs, who have shown they will use children as demining equipment in a war of aggression, acquire a nuclear bomb does not just seem like morally abhorrent but also a strategic disaster. And in case that argument is not convincing enough, they have made it clear on many occasions they want nuclear weapons in order to use them aggressively.

Ah, and one thing I think the world would be definitely better without, is a western apartheid state with genocidal tendencies placed in the middle east and hell-bent on conquering land and destroying all opponents, armed to the teeth and supported by the west beyond all reason.