24 Comments
User's avatar
Sam Hilt's avatar

Yes, your points are well taken. Those are all legitimate reasons to be cautious and concerned. There were also many legitimate reasons to avoid confronting Hitler back in the 1930s. Ultimately, the choice remains the same: whether to confront radical evil when the odds are still very much in our favor. Or to let the beast live and eventually menace us with nuclear weapons. There will never be a better time than now to cut the head off the snake.

Dana Ramos's avatar

exactly! Well stated!

Mitchell R Lubart's avatar

Sam. Sadly (and with humility and trepidation) I agree with you.

Always reasons not to act and often the reasons are good … but not always compelling. Sometimes the lesser evil is painful but still the lesser evil and sometimes the cost of doing the right thing is high but it is still the right thing.

We do not know how it ends in advance but we plan, leap into the sea and we 🙏🏼.

Sam Hilt's avatar

You summarized my argument perfectly in fewer words: "Sometimes the lesser evil is painful but still the lesser evil."

Kevin Miner's avatar

"Military force can destroy facilities and degrade capabilities. It cannot, on its own, design a political future for a nation of more than 80 million people."

Silence and inactivity will ensure that more than 80 million people have no future.

Richard Baker's avatar

"Backlash?" Iran is a police and terrorist state and there'll be more unhappiness coming to the Mad Mullahs. The Revolutionary Guard can't kill them all and eventually the people will prevail. Mr. President, airdrop pallets of AK's with ammunition all over the country and let the Iranians take care of business.

Christopher / Chaim's avatar

Israel controls the airspace above Iran, so it would be easy to drop pallets.

Richard Baker's avatar

Agree. What are the Mad Mullahs gonna do complain to the UN? The AKs and ammunition won't be hard to collect and, having fired them myself, they will be easy to use by the Iranian people to rid themselves of their oppressors. As they kill them just pick up their weapons and spread the wealth. Remember, many Iranians were involved in the 8-year war with Iraq so the knowledge IS available.

Paul Goldman's avatar

They said that Israel couldn’t take out Hezbollah. They said they couldn’t take out the Iran nuclear program. They said that they couldn’t get rid of the Syrian dictator. Blah, blah, blah. Iran is a paper tiger. Israel couldn’t take destroy the country in a week if allowed to do it. The US could take out the regime in a day or two.

Kevin Miner's avatar

"Military force can destroy facilities and degrade capabilities. It cannot, on its own, design a political future for a nation of more than 80 million people." Silence and inactivity will ensure that more than 80 million people have no future.

John Galt III's avatar

Take out their Navy - 5 minutes

Take out their oil and gas infrastructure - 5 minutes

You can't run a military with oil and gas and a Navy

Takes 5 minutes.

Then tell them they 48 hours to get out of Dodge City or every government buildng and IRGC enterprise gets destroyed. Inform them if one missile is fired at us we will hunt down every leader in the country one by one and hang them..

All their money is in Dubai and the UAE - freeze the money.

The Holy Land News's avatar

This Islamic terrorist regime has been terrorizing countries all over the world and its own people for the past 47 years. How long will the world continue to tolerate their aggression and crimes against humanity?

The behavior details a concerning pattern of prolonged aggression and oppression.

Such persistent actions raise significant questions about international tolerance and the effectiveness of current non global responses.

The long-term implications of this continued state of affairs warrant serious consideration by all relevant international bodies. Addressing the root causes and consequences of such entrenched behavior is crucial for fostering stability and security.

A comprehensive and unified approach, by Western nations is necessary to navigate and end this complex and deeply troubling situation.

Freedom Lover's avatar

SO destabilizing and dangerous is the Mullah regime that the risks are worth it. It is difficult to imagine anything worse.

Angelus Irae ☩'s avatar

99.4% Muslims. Seems pretty simple. It's a target rich environment. Hit the mosques first.

MaryLou's avatar

The citizens burned down most of the mosques. It would waste time if they are still standing. Hit military targets and disrupt infrastructure. This isn't a holy war against Islam. It is a rescue operation that the majority want and the ones who managed to get a WiFi connection are literally begging the US to help.

Angelus Irae ☩'s avatar

Nah, it's a holy war against Islam. The holy war is the bigger picture. Islam is the problem.

Sherrie Mathieson's avatar

I go back to the analogy of "stage 4 cancer treatment". Both radiation, chemo and operations are often involved. Even some "experimental" clinical trials with "unknown" results. The MD will tell you the downside if he's honest. It WILL most definitely affect one's OTHER organs and bodily functions. The analogy seems extremely relevant. Can you LIVE with that "stage 4" threatening your life --forever?

Barry Lederman, “normie”'s avatar

This is a strange post. It “denies” how successful was the first strike by Israel disabling the air defenses and US disabling the nuclear facilities. Is the author funded by Qatar or China or?

Sam Hilt's avatar

I also found it puzzling. I've read two earlier posts by the same author that were both hard-hitting and insightful. This one appears to be written by someone who enjoys going against the grain and promoting uncertainty, even where it's unwarranted. Hmm...

Barry Lederman, “normie”'s avatar

Thanks for reminding me to look up prior posts. I was going to do that but I decided to comment my first reaction.

Laura's avatar

This is why that regime should have been taken out years ago. This is the dilemma faced when waiting so long.

The New Western Doctrine's avatar

No, it won’t be easy. And most likely, the main goal of this strike will not be toppling the regime, but weakening it—and, most importantly, ensuring that its nuclear and missile capabilities are significantly degraded. This is possible and necessary, because the cost of doing nothing has become far higher than carrying out a difficult but pretty feasible plan.

Laura's avatar

I don't see how a successor regime could be even more radical and militarized than the current one. That being said, you do make a convincing argument for not launching a military attack on Iran.

Any of the possible dire consequences you mentioned would of course be blamed on Jews.

.........................................................................................................................................................................................

"There is no clear successor movement with unified leadership, nationwide legitimacy, and the capacity to govern a country of Iran’s size and complexity. Without a credible plan for “the day after,” the risk is not a smooth transition; it’s fragmentation, internal power struggles, or the emergence of a more radical and militarized regime".