They can't really not talk about it, it's a world war unfolding. It's going to affect every person alive. But as much as it can be, it is absolutely being mitigated in traditional media.

Compared to, say, the coverage from Ukraine during February 2022, actual information getting out from the ground is sparser. Or the opening "shock and awe" campaign in Iraq in 2003, there were Western and international media in Baghdad reporting on it in real time, shooting video from their hotels:

https://youtu.be/m8KimNtB9HI

The reason why isn't really a mystery: Iran has never been exactly welcoming to Western media, and internet access there was intentionally shut off after the recent protests. There's plenty of coverage- it's front page everywhere- but a paucity of information.

It's all over social media, but hardly any of that is from Iranians in Iran, it's just people outside it like you and me mostly just yapping. Occasionally you'll hear something second-hand from someone with family in Iran who managed some brief connectivity.

That doesn't make sense for America to care about this much, given that Iran has no way to deliver nuclear weapons to it.

Nor does Iran have nuclear weapons.

Are we really back in "trust me they have WMDs" territory? How many times we gonna fall for this?

The point the OP is making is not about the justification used by the US Admin, but instead a point about how when a country has nuclear weapons, they are typically not invaded, because you risk those weapons being used. NK developed a weapon and has some degree of safety from direct invasion.

Edited my post above to clarify that I do not believe Iran has WMD.

However, there is now messaging (on social media and on the NYT) from the US far right about how Iran has WMD. Take us back to 2003...

Obviously yes in the form that the comment you replied to refers to--US would be much more careful stringing a country with nuclear weapons. So while the invasion may not be caused by proximity it can be allowed bc Iran doesn't have one.

If you talk to your Asian and South Asian colleagues, the broadly held view among a lot of foreign "non aligned" nuclear countries is that Iran's regime is dumb and stupid because they didn't go nuclear first and instead tried to use it to squeeze the west by threatening to get nukes. The smarter states like India and China sprinted towards getting nukes before forcing the West to the negotiating table.

The middle eastern states are somewhat unique (and perhaps this is what inspired the end of history Western convergence school of thought in the late 90s geopolitical theory) in that they cannot survive without trade/exchange with the West. Your Asian powers like India/Pakistan/China/DPRK are all perfectly happy to be isolationist states to pursue autarchy and nuclear freedom but all of the middle eastern countries (including those like Syria/Libya) want to cosy up and trade with the West instead of going full autarchy. My theory is that it's because they are stuck in the oil resource trap and its just too easy to print money with oil than having to work and innovate.

Then again Iran is fractured internally, there's a lot of traitors within selling out the country to foreign powers. If you have Persian colleagues, ask them about the Iranian "Mossad jokes". They have a lot of funny jokes about the regime and Israeli intelligence.

And the conflicts fizzled out because both parties remembered that the other also has a WMD? That was my point above.

> North American oil is suddenly worth twice as much

That doesn't make up for the tens to hundreds of billions of dollars of American capex at risk in the Gulf, for example Exxon's tens of billions of dollars of capex in Qatar's LNG supply chain or Chevron's monopoly as the sole upstream producer in Kuwait and the KSA.

Any potential profit they could have made from North American extraction (which itself is questionable due to the significant processing requirements for North American crude) would itself have been eaten away by losses that have already been incurred in the Gulf.

The ONG industry has very low net margins (around 4% for integrated ONG), which means any shock is catastrophic, let alone a crisis such as the current one.

The problem with being unfree and alive, is one day you suddenly aren't, and you know exactly why and yet still have no idea of the specifics.

The general trend of more freedom==greater lifespan and more healthy children is very clear, but muddying the waters is a favorite tactic of those who'd exploit the lack of freedom for their own benefit.

> Are you confident this war is targeting a regime change vs causing a failed state scenario?

To the best of my knowledge, yes. Iranian people are the most pro-West people in the middle east. It's in the US's interest to support them for a better future, and we've seen successful examples of this in the past in Germany, South Korea, Japan, etc.

Not every country should be compared to Iraq and Syria.

Exactly. I very much doubt Israel is willing to entertain the possibility that a new Iranian government won't have any "animosity" towards them.