The Money Mustache Community
Other => Off Topic => Topic started by: Herbert Derp on June 13, 2025, 06:09:20 AM
-
Looks like the war is finally on. It wasn’t just hot air when Israel said they would not allow Iran to get nukes. What happens next?
-
What happens next? Hopefully nothing. The middle east squabbling is one of most useless wastes of human life in modern times. Israel is supposed to be a sophisticated liberal democracy but they've shown time and time again that they can't solve problems peacefully and I think that's a problem.
With that said, Israel invading Iran is probably a best case scenario for the USA. We get Iran flattened like we've wanted for a while, and its not us doing it, all we've got to do is pony up for some bombs.
-
Israel is far and away the top military superpower of the region and enjoys strong backing from the US and Russia. I don't think there's any real way that nearby countries can defend themselves beyond ineffectual and largely symbolic gestures. We've seen after Israeli actions in Lebanon and Palestine that there are no guardrails on this countries militarism, so I expect that they will continue to rain death down on anyone they consider enemies with the same impunity and zero concern for civilian deaths that have been evident in the past few years.
-
Israel appears to have caused substantial damage to Iran's air defenses, first having destroyed numerous radars last fall in response to the missile attacks back then, struck several air defense sites and air bases yesterday. Israel now reporting to have recon drones over Iranian airspace.
The first wave of strikes destroyed Iran's primary uranium enrichment facility, and killed most of the air force's senior leadership. Several videos emerging of strikes on Iran's ballistic missile launchers to limit retaliation.
Also, Trump claims the argument he got into with Bibi a few weeks ago about opposing strikes on Iran was a psyop. He was fully read-in on the plan and supports it.
https://www.axios.com/2025/06/13/how-israel-executed-strike-iran-nuclear (https://www.axios.com/2025/06/13/how-israel-executed-strike-iran-nuclear)
https://fixupx.com/idf/status/1933459738936656100 (https://fixupx.com/idf/status/1933459738936656100)
https://fixvx.com/detresfa_/status/1933484402912199155 (https://fixvx.com/detresfa_/status/1933484402912199155)
https://fixupx.com/manniefabian/status/1933426615440060560 (https://fixupx.com/manniefabian/status/1933426615440060560)
https://x.com/elintnews/status/1933472115514356079 (https://x.com/elintnews/status/1933472115514356079)
-
The West, Israel, and the moderate Middle-Eastern countries have dragged their asses for decades while Iran created the Loony Tunes characters of today’s region: Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis. These abominations simply got too big to keep around and were systematically attacked and largely destroyed. Then the dominos started falling, like Russia’s Syrian puppet Assad.
Next?
My guess is two things start going on simultaneously:
First, I think (hope) the mopping up of the HHH’s and other local nut jobs will succeed and the vacuum will be filled by The West, with the moderate countries in tow. This will create an amazing, and allied, economic opportunity zone (sorry China) and others in the region will be soon to follow. I see India joining in too since their opportunities will be too great to ignore. So America’s long term vision will come to fruition.
Second, I assume Iran’s ruling leadership will be killed off and their nuke facilities destroyed. Here’s where I hope the Americans let the locals and some talented EU types do the nation-building, with Iranians assuming control of their own country. Americans have proved they don’t know how to do this. The Russia/Iran/China/NK alliance will hope to have leverage, but we’ll push them aside and I don’t really see them having the balls to stop us.
-
What happens next?
BOLD PREDICTION:
Religious fanatics in the Middle East will continue to kill each other's children, because their dads got into a fight long ago, about a fight their granddads got into. Religious ethical systems will continue to enable people to bomb cities full of civilians without feeling the slightest ethical qualm.
If Iran does not double down on developing nuclear weapons now, the country is run by idiots. Any negotiations with the deal-breaking Trump or the genocidal Netanyahu would, at this point, be stalling for time. Like Pakistan, Iran will eventually get the bomb.
-
If Iran does not double down on developing nuclear weapons now, the country is run by idiots. Any negotiations with the deal-breaking Trump or the genocidal Netanyahu would, at this point, be stalling for time. Like Pakistan, Iran will eventually get the bomb.
Iran had and was abiding by a deal with the US under Obama not to develop nuclear weapons the last time that Trump was in power. Trump reneged on that deal. Why would Iran ever trust the US again, particularly under Trump 2: Bigger, Badder, and More UnhingedTM?
-
If Iran does not double down on developing nuclear weapons now, the country is run by idiots.
I feel for the Iranians and hope they get the chance to live up to their potential in a new world. But their current leadership are dangerous religious charlatans (many idiots too) that are likely to be killed before doubling down on anything. Let us pray!
-
The West, Israel, and the moderate Middle-Eastern countries have dragged their asses for decades while Iran created the Loony Tunes characters of today’s region: Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis. These abominations simply got too big to keep around and were systematically attacked and largely destroyed. Then the dominos started falling, like Russia’s Syrian puppet Assad.
Next?
My guess is two things start going on simultaneously:
First, I think (hope) the mopping up of the HHH’s and other local nut jobs will succeed and the vacuum will be filled by The West, with the moderate countries in tow. This will create an amazing, and allied, economic opportunity zone (sorry China) and others in the region will be soon to follow. I see India joining in too since their opportunities will be too great to ignore. So America’s long term vision will come to fruition.
Second, I assume Iran’s ruling leadership will be killed off and their nuke facilities destroyed. Here’s where I hope the Americans let the locals and some talented EU types do the nation-building, with Iranians assuming control of their own country. Americans have proved they don’t know how to do this. The Russia/Iran/China/NK alliance will hope to have leverage, but we’ll push them aside and I don’t really see them having the balls to stop us.
This feels wildly optimistic, kind of like 'we will be greeted as liberators' in Iraq. I would love to see a more peaceful region come out, but I don't see that as likely given the current crop of leaders. Netanyahu is scrambling to stay in power and use of military force is part of that calculation. The Ayatollah is willing to use force both against his own people and other countries. The retaliation is likely to be through something other than ballistic missles given how the last attempt went. But, the stage is well and truly set for a cycle of escalation. Trump will probably believe whatever conspiracy theory is out there and add gas to the fire.
Mopping up HHH is not so simple, especially as onoing actions are so greivous to human rights that they are fostering the next generations of militant response. Again, none of the players are invested in deescalation, so that does not bode well for a lead in to anything like peaceful nation building.
-
What happens next?
BOLD PREDICTION:
Religious fanatics in the Middle East will continue to kill each other's children, because their dads got into a fight long ago, about a fight their granddads got into. Religious ethical systems will continue to enable people to bomb cities full of civilians without feeling the slightest ethical qualm.
If Iran does not double down on developing nuclear weapons now, the country is run by idiots. Any negotiations with the deal-breaking Trump or the genocidal Netanyahu would, at this point, be stalling for time. Like Pakistan, Iran will eventually get the bomb.
I don't mean this to support what Israel is doing at all, but what is the degree of confidence Iran had stopped with their nuclear development?
-
What happens next?
BOLD PREDICTION:
Religious fanatics in the Middle East will continue to kill each other's children, because their dads got into a fight long ago, about a fight their granddads got into. Religious ethical systems will continue to enable people to bomb cities full of civilians without feeling the slightest ethical qualm.
If Iran does not double down on developing nuclear weapons now, the country is run by idiots. Any negotiations with the deal-breaking Trump or the genocidal Netanyahu would, at this point, be stalling for time. Like Pakistan, Iran will eventually get the bomb.
I don't mean this to support what Israel is doing at all, but what is the degree of confidence Iran had stopped with their nuclear development?
It's been going on since Trump scuttled Obama's nuclear deal. But now the Iranians are facing unprovoked attack, not on their proxies, but on their own cities. Their urgency level just went straight up.
-
What happens next?
BOLD PREDICTION:
Religious fanatics in the Middle East will continue to kill each other's children, because their dads got into a fight long ago, about a fight their granddads got into. Religious ethical systems will continue to enable people to bomb cities full of civilians without feeling the slightest ethical qualm.
If Iran does not double down on developing nuclear weapons now, the country is run by idiots. Any negotiations with the deal-breaking Trump or the genocidal Netanyahu would, at this point, be stalling for time. Like Pakistan, Iran will eventually get the bomb.
I don't mean this to support what Israel is doing at all, but what is the degree of confidence Iran had stopped with their nuclear development?
It's been going on since Trump scuttled Obama's nuclear deal. But now the Iranians are facing unprovoked attack, not on their proxies, but on their own cities. Their urgency level just went straight up.
I'm afraid I don't get what you're saying. I'm asking because the Republicans I know are saying that Iran was blatantly ignoring the deals and actively developing nuclear, do Israel was just doing what needed to be done. I'm not saying that I agree with Israel doing this even if what I'm hearing is true... I'm just wondering if what I'm hearing is true
-
What happens next?
BOLD PREDICTION:
Religious fanatics in the Middle East will continue to kill each other's children, because their dads got into a fight long ago, about a fight their granddads got into. Religious ethical systems will continue to enable people to bomb cities full of civilians without feeling the slightest ethical qualm.
If Iran does not double down on developing nuclear weapons now, the country is run by idiots. Any negotiations with the deal-breaking Trump or the genocidal Netanyahu would, at this point, be stalling for time. Like Pakistan, Iran will eventually get the bomb.
I don't mean this to support what Israel is doing at all, but what is the degree of confidence Iran had stopped with their nuclear development?
It's been going on since Trump scuttled Obama's nuclear deal. But now the Iranians are facing unprovoked attack, not on their proxies, but on their own cities. Their urgency level just went straight up.
I'm afraid I don't get what you're saying. I'm asking because the Republicans I know are saying that Iran was blatantly ignoring the deals and actively developing nuclear, do Israel was just doing what needed to be done. I'm not saying that I agree with Israel doing this even if what I'm hearing is true... I'm just wondering if what I'm hearing is true
Iran started a Russian supported nuclear power program with a reactor design that is only used by countries that enrich uranium for nuclear weapons. However they signed a non-proliferation treaty.
Obama agreed to a nuclear deal (https://www.cnn.com/2013/11/24/world/meast/iran-nuclear-deal-qa/index.html) with Iran in 2013 that involved lighter sanctions and daily inspections of nuclear facilities by the IAEA to ensure enrichment wasn't occurring beyond treaty limits.
Israel, a major US campaign finance donor, and Saudi Arabia did not support the deal because they did not trust the inspectors, or trust the Iranians not to deceive the inspectors. These nations are both in the line of Iran's nuclear fire and also are able to influence the United States to fight Iran on their behalf and enforce sanctions against their enemy.
Trump was elected, and in 2018 pulled out of the agreement and hit Iran with new sanctions. Iran, in turn, increased uranium enrichment, either for leverage against Trump or in pursuit of their real goal of making a weapon. Iran now has 50x as much enriched uranium (https://www.cnn.com/2025/06/13/middleeast/iran-nuclear-program-explainer-intl-dg) as it did when Trump pulled out in 2018.
Biden spent a year negotiating to try to resurrect the nuclear deal in 2022, but was unsuccessful.
Now it is believed Iran has enough enriched uranium that they could, if desired, enrich what they have to weapons grade and within 5 months have enough for 22 nuclear bombs. Israel's bombing targeted the facility that could do this enrichment. It's an open question whether the underground facilities were actually damaged or if Iran had already extracted and re-positioned plenty of weapons-grade uranium.
IMO, Iran will announce itself as a nuclear power with a detonation once they have a sufficient supply of bombs built and perhaps once a couple of those bombs are secretly pre-positioned in enemy cities like Tel Aviv, Washington D.C, and Riyadh. It's a Tom Clancy novel come true, unfortunately.
-
Iran was blatantly ignoring the deals and actively developing nuclear, do Israel was just doing what needed to be done. I'm not saying that I agree with Israel doing this even if what I'm hearing is true... I'm just wondering if what I'm hearing is true
It does appear to be true.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/damning-iaea-report-spells-out-past-secret-nuclear-activities-in-iran/ar-AA1FQIHx
-
I am glad to see the emergence of a regional power who is unapologetic about confronting existential risk head on.
The smart Muslim countries and have gotten the memo and normalized or are in the process of normalizing relations with Israel; others would be wise to follow suit instead of trying to pick a fight with a comically superior adversary.
-
I am glad to see the emergence of a regional power who is unapologetic about confronting existential risk head on.
The smart Muslim countries and have gotten the memo and normalized or are in the process of normalizing relations with Israel; others would be wise to follow suit instead of trying to pick a fight with a comically superior adversary.
Saudis probably happy that the Iranian Shia govt is getting their ass kicked by the Jews.
There's a massive Sunni vs Shia hate out there...
but yeah, this ain't the be-all-end-all of this conflict. Magic 8 ball sez this will continue for centuries....
-
maybe Trump will figure: fuck it and just nuke Iran
-
Trump is a worthless POS of a president. Kim Jung-un style military parade for his birthday later today. Tanks rolling down Los Angeles.. starting WW III the with assisting of Israel in the bombing of Iran.
-
What happens next? Hopefully nothing. The middle east squabbling is one of most useless wastes of human life in modern times. Israel is supposed to be a sophisticated liberal democracy but they've shown time and time again that they can't solve problems peacefully and I think that's a problem.
Over decades, Israel's neighbors have attacked it over and over. Egypt claimed the Suez canal, provoking a war with several countries, which was finished by Israel. Egypt later started another war with Israel. I think Egypt should be blamed when they start a war, unlike your view to blame Israel for any war in which it is involved - even if attacked. Was Israel to blame for Hezbollah attacking it a couple years ago, or 40+ years ago? Israel's neighbors show this pattern of attacking Israel, which is important context missing from your blame.
If Iran does not double down on developing nuclear weapons now, the country is run by idiots. Any negotiations with the deal-breaking Trump or the genocidal Netanyahu would, at this point, be stalling for time. Like Pakistan, Iran will eventually get the bomb.
Iran had and was abiding by a deal with the US under Obama not to develop nuclear weapons the last time that Trump was in power. Trump reneged on that deal. Why would Iran ever trust the US again, particularly under Trump 2: Bigger, Badder, and More UnhingedTM?
Accurate and without exaggeration, which I appreciate. As Israel discovered, Iran was funding terrorism throughout the Middle East (Houthis in Yemen, Hezbollah in Syria, Hamas in the West Bank). Iran didn't change its behavior while adhering to the restrictions of the nuclear deal. Iran has also violated the terms of the non-proliferation treaty it signed decades ago.
CNN had a panel discussion where they mentioned Trump's change in attitude towards Iran from a couple weeks ago to this past week. He seemed frustrated with demands by Iran that he felt were unreasonable. The panel's belief was that Israel wouldn't attack Iran when the U.S. was entirely against it, but when Trump softened, they probably received approval to attack Iran's nuclear sites (bolstered by the International Atomic Energy Commission report).
-
Israel's first-day strikes killed a list of nuclear scientists, the head of the entire program, a couple of major enrichment facilities, a significant portion of their air force and air defense senior leadership, and dozens of air defense sites. Iran's initial response after about a day was several waves of ballistics missiles totaling close to 200, over 90% of which were intercepted. A couple hit apartment buildings down the street from IDF headquarters. Day 2 strikes appear to be focusing on air defenses and ballistic missile launchers as well as nuclear facilities deeper inside Iran.
https://x.com/Schizointel/status/1933889714987098506 (https://x.com/Schizointel/status/1933889714987098506)
https://fixupx.com/IAFsite/status/1933890079530930256 (https://fixupx.com/IAFsite/status/1933890079530930256)
https://fixupx.com/Global_Mil_Info/status/1933877701200273795?t=ozQymL1eMvO6eAHensgnEw&s=19 (https://fixupx.com/Global_Mil_Info/status/1933877701200273795?t=ozQymL1eMvO6eAHensgnEw&s=19)
-
Here’s the first few paragraphs from today’s article “Can Israel Destroy Iran’s Nuclear Program?” in Foreign Affairs, that serves as it’s conclusion:
Israel’s decision to attack Iran’s nuclear program on June 12 might go down in history as the start of a significant regional war, and the inflection point that led Iran to finally acquire nuclear weapons. But the strikes might also be remembered as the first moment in decades in which the world no longer faced the risk of an Iranian bomb. For years, analysts have interrogated which outcome would be most likely—and have come away with very different predictions. Now, everyone will find out which forecast was correct.
It is still too soon to say what the outcome will be. It could take weeks before experts understand the full extent of the damage Israel has dealt, let alone if and how Tehran will recover. The attacks, after all, aren’t even finished. But although it may not yet be possible to judge the long-term effects of Israel’s strikes, analysts do know what to look for as they evaluate the results. Experts can, in other words, figure out what factors will determine whether the attacks were a success in denying Iran nuclear weapons capability.
Some of those factors are quantifiable. To stop or seriously slow Iran’s ability to make a weapon, for instance, Israel’s strikes had to deny Iran the material needed to fuel nuclear weapons. They needed to blow up equipment necessary for manufacturing weapons. And they had to at least partially rid Iran of the knowledge required to turn all its material into bombs. But the final factor is less palpable. To fully succeed, Israel’s attack must also have convinced Iran to reconsider the viability of its nuclear weapons project.
Israel’s attacks have thus far been successful in destroying many of the power stations, buildings, and infrastructure Iran needs for its nuclear program. Israel has also demonstrated the ability to attack targets in Iran largely at will. But success is by no means assured, given Iran’s substantial investment in defensive fortifications, its commitment to the program, its redundant systems, and the intrinsic difficulty of Israel’s task.
-
Also, Trump claims the argument he got into with Bibi a few weeks ago about opposing strikes on Iran was a psyop. He was fully read-in on the plan and supports it.
I call bullshit. Nobody would tell that moron anything they didn't want blustered about the next time he's in front of a microphone. But he will claim to know because he has a self image of being a strong man in charge.
-
Also, Trump claims the argument he got into with Bibi a few weeks ago about opposing strikes on Iran was a psyop. He was fully read-in on the plan and supports it.
I call bullshit. Nobody would tell that moron anything they didn't want blustered about the next time he's in front of a microphone. But he will claim to know because he has a self image of being a strong man in charge.
It could go either way. Trump and Bibi play each other when it suits them. Also, Huckabee apparently said a prayer on Twitter 40 minutes before the first bombs fell, which means not only was he warned, but he was reckless with the information. Which is weird since he's an "Old Testament, Israel can do no wrong" kind of guy.
-
Also, Trump claims the argument he got into with Bibi a few weeks ago about opposing strikes on Iran was a psyop. He was fully read-in on the plan and supports it.
I call bullshit. Nobody would tell that moron anything they didn't want blustered about the next time he's in front of a microphone. But he will claim to know because he has a self image of being a strong man in charge.
It could go either way. Trump and Bibi play each other when it suits them. Also, Huckabee apparently said a prayer on Twitter 40 minutes before the first bombs fell, which means not only was he warned, but he was reckless with the information. Which is weird since he's an "Old Testament, Israel can do no wrong" kind of guy.
Huh... guess I need to follow his prayers to Xitter God for day trading tips on oil futures.
Oh wait, this isn't the investment ideas thread...
-
I just read an op-ed in the NY Times from Thomas Freidman, and I don't really disagree with any of his points. I do think its fantasy to think that any of the politicians mentioned will do as he suggests though:
The Smart Way for Trump to End the Israel-Iran War
June 16, 2025
Credit...Eyad Baba/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
Listen to this article · 8:03 min Learn more
Share full article
659
Thomas L. Friedman
By Thomas L. Friedman
Opinion Columnist
Behind the strikes and counterstrikes in the current Israel-Iran war stands the clash of two strategic doctrines, one animating Iran and the other animating Israel, that are both deeply flawed. President Trump has a chance to correct both of them and to create the best opportunity for stabilizing the Middle East in decades — if he is up to it.
Iran’s flawed strategic doctrine, which was also practiced by its proxy, Hezbollah, to equally bad results, is a doctrine I call trying to out-crazy an adversary. Iran and Hezbollah are always ready to go all the way, thinking that whatever their opponents might do in response, Hezbollah or Iran will always outdo them with a more extreme measure.
You name it — assassinate the prime minister of Lebanon, Rafik Hariri; blow up the American Embassy in Beirut; help Bashar al-Assad murder thousands of his own people to stay in power — the imprints of Iran and its Hezbollah proxy are behind them all, together or separately. They are telling the world in effect: “No one will out-crazy us, so beware if you get in a fight with us, you will lose. Because we go all the way — and you moderates just go away.”
That Iranian doctrine did help Hezbollah drive Israel out of southern Lebanon. But where it fell short was Iran and Hezbollah thinking they could drive Israelis out of their biblical homeland. Iran and Hezbollah are delusional in this regard — Hamas, too. They keep referring to the Jewish state as a foreign colonial enterprise, with no indigenous connection to the land, and therefore they assume the Jews will eventually meet the same fate as the Belgians in the Belgian Congo. That is, under enough pressure they will eventually go back to their own version of Belgium.
But the Israeli Jews have no Belgium. They are as indigenous to their biblical homeland as the Palestinians, no matter what “anticolonial” nonsense they teach at elite universities. Therefore, you will never out-crazy the Israeli Jews. If push comes to shove, they will out-crazy you.
They will play by the local rules, and yes, those are not the rules of the Geneva Conventions. They are the rules of the Middle East, which I call Hama Rules — named after the Hama attacks perpetrated by the Syrian government of Hafez al-Assad in 1982, the aftermath of which I covered. Al-Assad wiped out the Muslim Brotherhood in Hama by mercilessly leveling whole swaths of the city, whole blocks of apartments, into a parking lot. Hama rules are no rules at all.
The former Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah and Iran’s supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, both thought that they could out-crazy the Israeli Jews, that Israel would never try to kill them personally, that Israel was, as Nasrallah liked to say, a “spider web” that would just unravel one day under pressure. He paid with his life with that miscalculation last year, and the supreme leader probably would have as well if Trump had not intervened, reportedly, last week to stop Israel from killing him. These Israeli Jews will not be out-crazied. That is how they still have a state in a very tough neighborhood.
That said, Benjamin Netanyahu and his band of extremists running the Israeli government today are in the grip of their own strategic fallacy, which I call the doctrine of “once and for all.”
I wish I had a dollar for every time, after some murderous attack on Israeli Jews by Palestinians or Iranian proxies, the Israeli government declared that it was going to solve the problem with force “once and for all.”
There are only two ways to finish off this problem once and for all. One is for Israel to permanently occupy the West Bank, Gaza and all of Iran, as America did to Germany and Japan after World War II, and try to change the political culture. But Israel has no chance of occupying all of Iran, and it has occupied the West Bank for 58 years and still has not wiped out Hamas’s influence there — let alone secular Palestinian nationalism. That is because Palestinians are every bit as indigenous as the Jews in their homeland. Israel will never “once and for all” them into submission, unless they kill every last one.
The only way to even get close to ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict “once and for all” is by working toward a two-state solution. Which brings me to what Trump should do now regarding Iran. He says he still hopes “there’s going to be a deal.” If he wants a good deal, he should declare that he is doing two things at once.
One, that he will equip Israel’s Air Force with the B-2 bombers and 30,000-pound bunker-buster bombs and U.S. trainers that would give Israel the capacity to destroy all of Iran’s underground nuclear facilities unless Iran immediately agrees to allow teams from the International Atomic Energy Agency to disassemble these facilities and to have access into every nuclear site in Iran to recover all fissile material that Tehran has generated. Only if Iran completely complies with these conditions should it be allowed to have a civilian nuclear program under strict IAEA controls. But Iran will comply only under a credible threat of force.
At the same time, Trump should declare that his administration recognizes the Palestinians as a people who have a right to national self-determination. But to realize that, they must demonstrate that they can fulfill the responsibilities of statehood by generating a new Palestinian Authority leadership that the United States deems credible, free of corruption and committed both to effectively serving Palestinian citizens in the West Bank and Gaza and to coexisting with Israel.
Trump must also make clear, though, that he will not tolerate the rapid settlement expansion and one-state reality that Israel is now creating, which is a prescription for a forever war because Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza won’t disappear or “once and for all” give up their national identity and aspirations. (At the end of May the Netanyahu government approved 22 new Jewish settlements in the occupied West Bank — the largest expansion in decades — which is simply insane.)
To that end, Trump could also say that his administration will be committed to sponsoring peace talks for a two-state solution — with the Trump peace plan for a pathway toward two states from his previous presidency as the minimum starting point but not ending point. That, the parties themselves must negotiate directly.
To be ready to out-crazy the crazies has been a necessary condition for Israel to survive in the Middle East, but it is not a sufficient one. As the Gaza war demonstrates, that strategy just begets more of the same. Even if it seems unfair at times, even if it seems naïve at times, a peace-loving nation has to keep exploring alternatives and pairing force with diplomacy. It’s not only the best policy for Israel vis-à-vis the Palestinians; it’s also the best way for Israel and America to isolate Iran.
As such, if Trump really wants to forge peace in the Middle East, which I believe he does, America must not become Netanyahu’s captive or Iran’s patsy. The United States has no interest in making Israel safe for messianic expansion or Iran safe for nuclear messianism. Trump must ignore the dangerous, knee-jerk isolationism of JD Vance. And he must eschew the equally foolish Netanyahu-can-do-no-wrong advice of G.O.P. armchair generals and evangelicals. Neither serves U.S. interests or credibility in the region.
The necessary but not sufficient conditions for peace in the Middle East that will allow America to reduce, but not end, its military presence there are that Iran be forced to draw a clear western border and stop trying to colonize its Arab neighbors and destroy Israel with a nuclear bomb, that Israel be forced to draw a clear eastern border and stop trying to colonize the whole of the West Bank and that Palestinians be forced to draw clear eastern and western borders between Israel and Jordan and stop with the “river to the sea” nonsense.
This war has created the best opportunity in decades for a wise statesman to use what Dennis Ross, a longtime Middle East negotiator, calls in his new book, Statecraft 2.0, “coercive diplomacy.” Is Trump up to that? I really don’t know, but we’re going to find out real soon.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/16/opinion/trump-israel-iran-war.html?campaign_id=39&emc=edit_ty_20250617&instance_id=156686&nl=opinion-today®i_id=123091539&segment_id=200089&user_id=601346289b01eb09175f5b85b558a7a4
-
I just read an op-ed in the NY Times from Thomas Freidman, and I don't really disagree with any of his points. I do think its fantasy to think that any of the politicians mentioned will do as he suggests though:
The Smart Way for Trump to End the Israel-Iran War
June 16, 2025
Credit...Eyad Baba/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
Listen to this article · 8:03 min Learn more
Share full article
659
Thomas L. Friedman
By Thomas L. Friedman
Opinion Columnist
Behind the strikes and counterstrikes in the current Israel-Iran war stands the clash of two strategic doctrines, one animating Iran and the other animating Israel, that are both deeply flawed. President Trump has a chance to correct both of them and to create the best opportunity for stabilizing the Middle East in decades — if he is up to it.
Iran’s flawed strategic doctrine, which was also practiced by its proxy, Hezbollah, to equally bad results, is a doctrine I call trying to out-crazy an adversary. Iran and Hezbollah are always ready to go all the way, thinking that whatever their opponents might do in response, Hezbollah or Iran will always outdo them with a more extreme measure.
You name it — assassinate the prime minister of Lebanon, Rafik Hariri; blow up the American Embassy in Beirut; help Bashar al-Assad murder thousands of his own people to stay in power — the imprints of Iran and its Hezbollah proxy are behind them all, together or separately. They are telling the world in effect: “No one will out-crazy us, so beware if you get in a fight with us, you will lose. Because we go all the way — and you moderates just go away.”
That Iranian doctrine did help Hezbollah drive Israel out of southern Lebanon. But where it fell short was Iran and Hezbollah thinking they could drive Israelis out of their biblical homeland. Iran and Hezbollah are delusional in this regard — Hamas, too. They keep referring to the Jewish state as a foreign colonial enterprise, with no indigenous connection to the land, and therefore they assume the Jews will eventually meet the same fate as the Belgians in the Belgian Congo. That is, under enough pressure they will eventually go back to their own version of Belgium.
But the Israeli Jews have no Belgium. They are as indigenous to their biblical homeland as the Palestinians, no matter what “anticolonial” nonsense they teach at elite universities. Therefore, you will never out-crazy the Israeli Jews. If push comes to shove, they will out-crazy you.
They will play by the local rules, and yes, those are not the rules of the Geneva Conventions. They are the rules of the Middle East, which I call Hama Rules — named after the Hama attacks perpetrated by the Syrian government of Hafez al-Assad in 1982, the aftermath of which I covered. Al-Assad wiped out the Muslim Brotherhood in Hama by mercilessly leveling whole swaths of the city, whole blocks of apartments, into a parking lot. Hama rules are no rules at all.
The former Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah and Iran’s supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, both thought that they could out-crazy the Israeli Jews, that Israel would never try to kill them personally, that Israel was, as Nasrallah liked to say, a “spider web” that would just unravel one day under pressure. He paid with his life with that miscalculation last year, and the supreme leader probably would have as well if Trump had not intervened, reportedly, last week to stop Israel from killing him. These Israeli Jews will not be out-crazied. That is how they still have a state in a very tough neighborhood.
That said, Benjamin Netanyahu and his band of extremists running the Israeli government today are in the grip of their own strategic fallacy, which I call the doctrine of “once and for all.”
I wish I had a dollar for every time, after some murderous attack on Israeli Jews by Palestinians or Iranian proxies, the Israeli government declared that it was going to solve the problem with force “once and for all.”
There are only two ways to finish off this problem once and for all. One is for Israel to permanently occupy the West Bank, Gaza and all of Iran, as America did to Germany and Japan after World War II, and try to change the political culture. But Israel has no chance of occupying all of Iran, and it has occupied the West Bank for 58 years and still has not wiped out Hamas’s influence there — let alone secular Palestinian nationalism. That is because Palestinians are every bit as indigenous as the Jews in their homeland. Israel will never “once and for all” them into submission, unless they kill every last one.
The only way to even get close to ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict “once and for all” is by working toward a two-state solution. Which brings me to what Trump should do now regarding Iran. He says he still hopes “there’s going to be a deal.” If he wants a good deal, he should declare that he is doing two things at once.
One, that he will equip Israel’s Air Force with the B-2 bombers and 30,000-pound bunker-buster bombs and U.S. trainers that would give Israel the capacity to destroy all of Iran’s underground nuclear facilities unless Iran immediately agrees to allow teams from the International Atomic Energy Agency to disassemble these facilities and to have access into every nuclear site in Iran to recover all fissile material that Tehran has generated. Only if Iran completely complies with these conditions should it be allowed to have a civilian nuclear program under strict IAEA controls. But Iran will comply only under a credible threat of force.
At the same time, Trump should declare that his administration recognizes the Palestinians as a people who have a right to national self-determination. But to realize that, they must demonstrate that they can fulfill the responsibilities of statehood by generating a new Palestinian Authority leadership that the United States deems credible, free of corruption and committed both to effectively serving Palestinian citizens in the West Bank and Gaza and to coexisting with Israel.
Trump must also make clear, though, that he will not tolerate the rapid settlement expansion and one-state reality that Israel is now creating, which is a prescription for a forever war because Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza won’t disappear or “once and for all” give up their national identity and aspirations. (At the end of May the Netanyahu government approved 22 new Jewish settlements in the occupied West Bank — the largest expansion in decades — which is simply insane.)
To that end, Trump could also say that his administration will be committed to sponsoring peace talks for a two-state solution — with the Trump peace plan for a pathway toward two states from his previous presidency as the minimum starting point but not ending point. That, the parties themselves must negotiate directly.
To be ready to out-crazy the crazies has been a necessary condition for Israel to survive in the Middle East, but it is not a sufficient one. As the Gaza war demonstrates, that strategy just begets more of the same. Even if it seems unfair at times, even if it seems naïve at times, a peace-loving nation has to keep exploring alternatives and pairing force with diplomacy. It’s not only the best policy for Israel vis-à-vis the Palestinians; it’s also the best way for Israel and America to isolate Iran.
As such, if Trump really wants to forge peace in the Middle East, which I believe he does, America must not become Netanyahu’s captive or Iran’s patsy. The United States has no interest in making Israel safe for messianic expansion or Iran safe for nuclear messianism. Trump must ignore the dangerous, knee-jerk isolationism of JD Vance. And he must eschew the equally foolish Netanyahu-can-do-no-wrong advice of G.O.P. armchair generals and evangelicals. Neither serves U.S. interests or credibility in the region.
The necessary but not sufficient conditions for peace in the Middle East that will allow America to reduce, but not end, its military presence there are that Iran be forced to draw a clear western border and stop trying to colonize its Arab neighbors and destroy Israel with a nuclear bomb, that Israel be forced to draw a clear eastern border and stop trying to colonize the whole of the West Bank and that Palestinians be forced to draw clear eastern and western borders between Israel and Jordan and stop with the “river to the sea” nonsense.
This war has created the best opportunity in decades for a wise statesman to use what Dennis Ross, a longtime Middle East negotiator, calls in his new book, Statecraft 2.0, “coercive diplomacy.” Is Trump up to that? I really don’t know, but we’re going to find out real soon.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/16/opinion/trump-israel-iran-war.html?campaign_id=39&emc=edit_ty_20250617&instance_id=156686&nl=opinion-today®i_id=123091539&segment_id=200089&user_id=601346289b01eb09175f5b85b558a7a4
I agree with most of what's written there. Actually, the part that doesn't make sense to me is the solution offered. We've seen that the more powerful Israel becomes, the less concerned they are with killing civilians. As he mentioned earlier, Israel is adopting the 'once and for all' doctrine where their leadership wants to keep killing until there's peace. Historically, this hasn't worked out very well. If America gives even more military supremacy to Israel, they will use it. Maybe initially they'll claim to target nuclear targets, but it won't stop there. While the author only sees two ways for Israel to get what they want (military occupation of Iran or a two state solution), I believe that there is a third way that the current Israeli administration would be equally happy with - kill enough of their enemies to feel safe.
Given how hard Israel has worked to prevent a two state solution (intentionally provoking Palestinians with constantly increasing illegal settlements in the West Bank, driving briefcases of money into Gaza in order to keep Hamas in power as part of a strategy to divide Palestinian leadership, etc.) it seems unlikely that they would ever be comfortable with this. There are so many intractable problems associated with a two state solution. Palestinian territory currently has hundreds of Israeli communities where the Palestinian inhabitants were forcibly evicted by gunpoint. What happens to the militantly religious Israelis who have been living there for decades? Palestinian territory is divided by Israeli owned territory. How will the free movement of Palestinians be achieved when Israel can easily cut it off at any second, for any reason? Palestine is incredibly weak from a military standpoint. How will Palestinians be able to fight back if Israel decides to stop playing by the rules? What will happen the first time that an Israeli is caught doing something illegal in Palestine by Palestinian police? Does anyone believe that Israel will sit back and allow a Palestinian legal system to have jurisdiction over it's citizens? This list goes on and on.
-
What happens next?
BOLD PREDICTION:
Religious fanatics in the Middle East will continue to kill each other's children, because their dads got into a fight long ago, about a fight their granddads got into. Religious ethical systems will continue to enable people to bomb cities full of civilians without feeling the slightest ethical qualm.
If Iran does not double down on developing nuclear weapons now, the country is run by idiots. Any negotiations with the deal-breaking Trump or the genocidal Netanyahu would, at this point, be stalling for time. Like Pakistan, Iran will eventually get the bomb.
2+ This is a religious war. Religious wars generally end very badly.
I do disagree with another poster. If Iran gets a Nuke, they will not destroy Israel with it. If they do, they will simply no longer exist. It's the equivalent of suicide. I'm sure Israel has a Nuke ready to go in an undisclosed location to enact revenge if Tel Aviv is taken out.
-
Idunno, that article is fine, but I think it misses the much larger, deeper point that these two factions harbor thousands of years of religious animosity. One faction literally denies the right of the other to even exist. The other is currently run by a war-mongering leader who is using the instability to cling to power. I don't know what the answer is but, to me, all of the author's suggestions seemed destined to fail like every other iteration in the past that has failed. I think @CheapBastard's "Bold Prediction" (lol) is probably right on the money: To wit:
BOLD PREDICTION:
Religious fanatics in the Middle East will continue to kill each other's children, because their dads got into a fight long ago, about a fight their granddads got into. Religious ethical systems will continue to enable people to bomb cities full of civilians without feeling the slightest ethical qualm.
-
What happens next?
BOLD PREDICTION:
Religious fanatics in the Middle East will continue to kill each other's children, because their dads got into a fight long ago, about a fight their granddads got into. Religious ethical systems will continue to enable people to bomb cities full of civilians without feeling the slightest ethical qualm.
If Iran does not double down on developing nuclear weapons now, the country is run by idiots. Any negotiations with the deal-breaking Trump or the genocidal Netanyahu would, at this point, be stalling for time. Like Pakistan, Iran will eventually get the bomb.
2+ This is a religious war. Religious wars generally end very badly.
I do disagree with another poster. If Iran gets a Nuke, they will not destroy Israel with it. If they do, they will simply no longer exist. It's the equivalent of suicide. You don't think Israel doesn't have a Nuke ready to go in an undisclosed location to enact revenge if Tel Aviv is taken out?
Suicide/Jihad is kinda their thing. I feel sorry for the reward virgins. That's if the higher up believe their own BS. Hard to tell.
-
Also, how would Israel (population 9.7 million), EVER be able to invade and hold territory in Iran (population 90 million)?
Asymmetric warfare is everything right now. Think IED's and Drones, suicide bombers and guerilla tactics.
For an alternative comparison, the USA (population 300 million) had a shite-ton of trouble in Iraq (population 26 million) in the early 2000's.
-
Also, how would Israel (population 9.7 million), EVER be able to invade and hold territory in Iran (population 90 million)?
Israel doesn't need to hold territory, just reduce the population to a manageable level. Like they're doing by starving the two million Gazans right now.
-
30 air fuelers left the US over the weekend heading to Europe. Reports of a few dozen strike aircraft on the way, along with another aircraft carrier. Trump going ham on Truth today talking about "we" control the skies over Iran and "Unconditional Surrender!"
The official message is "these are defensive measures," but clearly the means to wage our own air war are being put in place.
-
I just read an op-ed in the NY Times from Thomas Freidman, and I don't really disagree with any of his points. I do think its fantasy to think that any of the politicians mentioned will do as he suggests though:
The Smart Way for Trump to End the Israel-Iran War
June 16, 2025
Credit...Eyad Baba/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
Listen to this article · 8:03 min Learn more
Share full article
659
Thomas L. Friedman
By Thomas L. Friedman
Opinion Columnist
Behind the strikes and counterstrikes in the current Israel-Iran war stands the clash of two strategic doctrines, one animating Iran and the other animating Israel, that are both deeply flawed. President Trump has a chance to correct both of them and to create the best opportunity for stabilizing the Middle East in decades — if he is up to it.
Iran’s flawed strategic doctrine, which was also practiced by its proxy, Hezbollah, to equally bad results, is a doctrine I call trying to out-crazy an adversary. Iran and Hezbollah are always ready to go all the way, thinking that whatever their opponents might do in response, Hezbollah or Iran will always outdo them with a more extreme measure.
You name it — assassinate the prime minister of Lebanon, Rafik Hariri; blow up the American Embassy in Beirut; help Bashar al-Assad murder thousands of his own people to stay in power — the imprints of Iran and its Hezbollah proxy are behind them all, together or separately. They are telling the world in effect: “No one will out-crazy us, so beware if you get in a fight with us, you will lose. Because we go all the way — and you moderates just go away.”
That Iranian doctrine did help Hezbollah drive Israel out of southern Lebanon. But where it fell short was Iran and Hezbollah thinking they could drive Israelis out of their biblical homeland. Iran and Hezbollah are delusional in this regard — Hamas, too. They keep referring to the Jewish state as a foreign colonial enterprise, with no indigenous connection to the land, and therefore they assume the Jews will eventually meet the same fate as the Belgians in the Belgian Congo. That is, under enough pressure they will eventually go back to their own version of Belgium.
But the Israeli Jews have no Belgium. They are as indigenous to their biblical homeland as the Palestinians, no matter what “anticolonial” nonsense they teach at elite universities. Therefore, you will never out-crazy the Israeli Jews. If push comes to shove, they will out-crazy you.
They will play by the local rules, and yes, those are not the rules of the Geneva Conventions. They are the rules of the Middle East, which I call Hama Rules — named after the Hama attacks perpetrated by the Syrian government of Hafez al-Assad in 1982, the aftermath of which I covered. Al-Assad wiped out the Muslim Brotherhood in Hama by mercilessly leveling whole swaths of the city, whole blocks of apartments, into a parking lot. Hama rules are no rules at all.
The former Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah and Iran’s supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, both thought that they could out-crazy the Israeli Jews, that Israel would never try to kill them personally, that Israel was, as Nasrallah liked to say, a “spider web” that would just unravel one day under pressure. He paid with his life with that miscalculation last year, and the supreme leader probably would have as well if Trump had not intervened, reportedly, last week to stop Israel from killing him. These Israeli Jews will not be out-crazied. That is how they still have a state in a very tough neighborhood.
That said, Benjamin Netanyahu and his band of extremists running the Israeli government today are in the grip of their own strategic fallacy, which I call the doctrine of “once and for all.”
I wish I had a dollar for every time, after some murderous attack on Israeli Jews by Palestinians or Iranian proxies, the Israeli government declared that it was going to solve the problem with force “once and for all.”
There are only two ways to finish off this problem once and for all. One is for Israel to permanently occupy the West Bank, Gaza and all of Iran, as America did to Germany and Japan after World War II, and try to change the political culture. But Israel has no chance of occupying all of Iran, and it has occupied the West Bank for 58 years and still has not wiped out Hamas’s influence there — let alone secular Palestinian nationalism. That is because Palestinians are every bit as indigenous as the Jews in their homeland. Israel will never “once and for all” them into submission, unless they kill every last one.
The only way to even get close to ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict “once and for all” is by working toward a two-state solution. Which brings me to what Trump should do now regarding Iran. He says he still hopes “there’s going to be a deal.” If he wants a good deal, he should declare that he is doing two things at once.
One, that he will equip Israel’s Air Force with the B-2 bombers and 30,000-pound bunker-buster bombs and U.S. trainers that would give Israel the capacity to destroy all of Iran’s underground nuclear facilities unless Iran immediately agrees to allow teams from the International Atomic Energy Agency to disassemble these facilities and to have access into every nuclear site in Iran to recover all fissile material that Tehran has generated. Only if Iran completely complies with these conditions should it be allowed to have a civilian nuclear program under strict IAEA controls. But Iran will comply only under a credible threat of force.
At the same time, Trump should declare that his administration recognizes the Palestinians as a people who have a right to national self-determination. But to realize that, they must demonstrate that they can fulfill the responsibilities of statehood by generating a new Palestinian Authority leadership that the United States deems credible, free of corruption and committed both to effectively serving Palestinian citizens in the West Bank and Gaza and to coexisting with Israel.
Trump must also make clear, though, that he will not tolerate the rapid settlement expansion and one-state reality that Israel is now creating, which is a prescription for a forever war because Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza won’t disappear or “once and for all” give up their national identity and aspirations. (At the end of May the Netanyahu government approved 22 new Jewish settlements in the occupied West Bank — the largest expansion in decades — which is simply insane.)
To that end, Trump could also say that his administration will be committed to sponsoring peace talks for a two-state solution — with the Trump peace plan for a pathway toward two states from his previous presidency as the minimum starting point but not ending point. That, the parties themselves must negotiate directly.
To be ready to out-crazy the crazies has been a necessary condition for Israel to survive in the Middle East, but it is not a sufficient one. As the Gaza war demonstrates, that strategy just begets more of the same. Even if it seems unfair at times, even if it seems naïve at times, a peace-loving nation has to keep exploring alternatives and pairing force with diplomacy. It’s not only the best policy for Israel vis-à-vis the Palestinians; it’s also the best way for Israel and America to isolate Iran.
As such, if Trump really wants to forge peace in the Middle East, which I believe he does, America must not become Netanyahu’s captive or Iran’s patsy. The United States has no interest in making Israel safe for messianic expansion or Iran safe for nuclear messianism. Trump must ignore the dangerous, knee-jerk isolationism of JD Vance. And he must eschew the equally foolish Netanyahu-can-do-no-wrong advice of G.O.P. armchair generals and evangelicals. Neither serves U.S. interests or credibility in the region.
The necessary but not sufficient conditions for peace in the Middle East that will allow America to reduce, but not end, its military presence there are that Iran be forced to draw a clear western border and stop trying to colonize its Arab neighbors and destroy Israel with a nuclear bomb, that Israel be forced to draw a clear eastern border and stop trying to colonize the whole of the West Bank and that Palestinians be forced to draw clear eastern and western borders between Israel and Jordan and stop with the “river to the sea” nonsense.
This war has created the best opportunity in decades for a wise statesman to use what Dennis Ross, a longtime Middle East negotiator, calls in his new book, Statecraft 2.0, “coercive diplomacy.” Is Trump up to that? I really don’t know, but we’re going to find out real soon.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/16/opinion/trump-israel-iran-war.html?campaign_id=39&emc=edit_ty_20250617&instance_id=156686&nl=opinion-today®i_id=123091539&segment_id=200089&user_id=601346289b01eb09175f5b85b558a7a4
This is how the world should work with the rational and self-interested populations using diplomacy to navigate to a lasting peace that logically improves everyone's lives.
As such, it is completely naive. Friedman is hanging onto the two-state solution that nobody in the region wants, and which both sides have intentionally sabotaged. What they each want is to defeat the other, in a genocidal way, and to obtain full and exclusive control over the Holy Dirt.
Today, the 2-state solution is only really pursued by Democrats in the U.S, particularly Dems of the 1990s vintage. The fundamental flaw is the same now as it was 30 years ago: The combatants don't want peace. It has no better chance of succeeding now than it did during the 1993 Oslo Accords.
Not to mention that the most issue-engaged people in the U.S. right now are evangelical Christians, whose antisemitic great-grandparents first shut the refugee and immigration doors to Jews trying to flee the European holocaust, and then colluded to send the survivors to the one place in the Middle East where they could assume the Arabs would finish the job the Holocaust started.
Today's Christian fundamentalism has transformed (since the Yom Kippur war) into a pro-Israeli movement, with many fundies flying Israeli flags from their doorsteps. But they don't only want Israel to thrive so that they can take tourist trips to the Holy Dirt. They also hold apocalyptic beliefs in which the Jews will eventually be destroyed in a massive war, leading to a chain of events that ends with the second coming of Jesus and their own rapture into heaven.
So why did Trump scuttle the nuclear agreement that might have prevented Tehran from obtaining nuclear weapons? Perhaps that outcome would have conflicted with evangelicals' hopes of living to see Israel leveled by nuclear weapons. Why did Trump move the US embassy to Jerusalem? Perhaps it was a necessary step in the territorial expansion of Israel to control the entire holy land prior to the great war.
The Israelis are fine with this version of antisemitism because it results in an endless stream of US tax dollars and the sort of advanced weapons that allow for strikes deep in Iran. With allies like this, who needs peace? Yet, fissures could develop in such an alliance of convenience. If Iran's nuclear weapons capacity was actually destroyed, evangelicals might be disappointed. Similarly, if Israel was to assassinate the ayatollah, and throw Iran into political paralysis, who else would play that part in the evangelicals' prophecy?
So yea, 3 sides who all want war for different reasons are in control, and 1990's era Democrats are talking about a fantasy world where that's not the case. The rest of us are along for the ride, because the idea of cutting aid to Israel if they refuse to play nice with their neighbors is considered taboo. If the U.S. gets its way, this could very well end with a 2nd Holocaust - this time a nuclear one.
-
2+ This is a religious war. Religious wars generally end very badly.
I do disagree with another poster. If Iran gets a Nuke, they will not destroy Israel with it. If they do, they will simply no longer exist. It's the equivalent of suicide. I'm sure Israel has a Nuke ready to go in an undisclosed location to enact revenge if Tel Aviv is taken out.
Keep in mind that most Iranians are very secular. The groups that overthrew the Shah were mostly secular too, but the religious fanatic element managed to take over in the end. So yes, it's a religious conflict - but if the 10% of Iranians who are zealots lose power, the rest of the country isn't interested in the conflict in that sense (they may be pissed enough from all the Israeli bombings that they're not super happy with Israel either, of course).
Remember that the existing Iranian government has teetered on the edge of losing control of the country multiple times in the last decade in mass protest events and have only managed to prevail with brutal force against demonstrators. If enough of the military and religious leadership gets killed by Israel, things look very different.
The Palestinian issue is a different story, of course.
-W
-
2+ This is a religious war. Religious wars generally end very badly.
I do disagree with another poster. If Iran gets a Nuke, they will not destroy Israel with it. If they do, they will simply no longer exist. It's the equivalent of suicide. I'm sure Israel has a Nuke ready to go in an undisclosed location to enact revenge if Tel Aviv is taken out.
Keep in mind that most Iranians are very secular. The groups that overthrew the Shah were mostly secular too, but the religious fanatic element managed to take over in the end. So yes, it's a religious conflict - but if the 10% of Iranians who are zealots lose power, the rest of the country isn't interested in the conflict in that sense (they may be pissed enough from all the Israeli bombings that they're not super happy with Israel either, of course).
Remember that the existing Iranian government has teetered on the edge of losing control of the country multiple times in the last decade in mass protest events and have only managed to prevail with brutal force against demonstrators. If enough of the military and religious leadership gets killed by Israel, things look very different.
The Palestinian issue is a different story, of course.
-W
So Israel will be treated as liberators, eh? Where have I heard that one before?
-JGS
-
Keep in mind that most Iranians are very secular. The groups that overthrew the Shah were mostly secular too, but the religious fanatic element managed to take over in the end. So yes, it's a religious conflict - but if the 10% of Iranians who are zealots lose power, the rest of the country isn't interested in the conflict in that sense (they may be pissed enough from all the Israeli bombings that they're not super happy with Israel either, of course).
So Israel will be treated as liberators, eh? Where have I heard that one before?
-JGS
Are you deliberately misreading (or not reading) my post? I said that, for most Iranians, this is not a religious conflict. I did not say they love Israel for bombing their country.
-
Keep in mind that most Iranians are very secular. The groups that overthrew the Shah were mostly secular too, but the religious fanatic element managed to take over in the end. So yes, it's a religious conflict - but if the 10% of Iranians who are zealots lose power, the rest of the country isn't interested in the conflict in that sense (they may be pissed enough from all the Israeli bombings that they're not super happy with Israel either, of course).
So Israel will be treated as liberators, eh? Where have I heard that one before?
-JGS
Are you deliberately misreading (or not reading) my post? I said that, for most Iranians, this is not a religious conflict. I did not say they love Israel for bombing their country.
I was curious, so tried to find the number of religious extremists in Israel. There are obviously no official numbers, but we can ballpark. Certainly all illegal settlers - 770,000 people (broken down between 450,000 in the West Bank and 220,000 in East Jerusalem) can be classified as religious extremists given their adherence to zionism through illegal actions, forceful domination, and general oppression of non-Jewish Arabs since these actions are entirely justified by religious reasoning. Given that there are 7.2 million Jews in Israel, this would sit close to the same 10% mark you assigned to Iranians.
Granted, the years of fighting have left a bad taste in the mouth for the remaining 90% of relatively or completely secular residents. Still, it seems likely that this conflict is heavily driven largely by that crazy religious 10% on each side and that neither group has been able or willing to purge these deluded people.
-
Keep in mind that most Iranians are very secular. The groups that overthrew the Shah were mostly secular too, but the religious fanatic element managed to take over in the end. So yes, it's a religious conflict - but if the 10% of Iranians who are zealots lose power, the rest of the country isn't interested in the conflict in that sense (they may be pissed enough from all the Israeli bombings that they're not super happy with Israel either, of course).
So Israel will be treated as liberators, eh? Where have I heard that one before?
-JGS
Are you deliberately misreading (or not reading) my post? I said that, for most Iranians, this is not a religious conflict. I did not say they love Israel for bombing their country.
I interpreted your post as suggesting that a little nudge in the right direction might lead to the non-zealots taking over Iran. Perhaps some extensive bombing? Or maybe an invasion?
My snarky comment was made to suggest that this kind of wishful thinking was exactly what led to the USA invasion of Iraq, and its long term consequences.
-
This really is the next check box on the authoritarian playlist. Start a 'short victorious war' to force all your people to rally behind the flag - and give you an excuse to repress any and all dissent, related or not.
Sadly the following check box is to eventually lose the war because authoritarians recruit their top people based on loyalty rather than competence (looking at you Hegseth). Meanwhile tens or hundreds of thousands die.
-
This really is the next check box on the authoritarian playlist. Start a 'short victorious war' to force all your people to rally behind the flag - and give you an excuse to repress any and all dissent, related or not.
Sadly the following check box is to eventually lose the war because authoritarians recruit their top people based on loyalty rather than competence (looking at you Hegseth). Meanwhile tens or hundreds of thousands die.
I don't know if Americans still "rally around the flag" like we did for the 1990 Gulf War. Being lied to about Iraqi WMD's and the lack of a victory after such a prolonged campaign may have soured people's excitement. Plus, the "Greatest Generation", who carried the last living memories of the U.S. winning a competitive war through sheer effort of patriotism, is now gone.
Yet, war still serves an important political purpose. The longer we breathlessly talk about wars, or tariffs, or immigrants, the less we talk about Donald Trump's involvement with Jeffrey Epstein's offshore cartel of pedophilia.
-
I think Netanyahu has played Biden and Trump like a fiddle. Like a 12 year old telling a couple first graders a story. Amazing.
-
Why is Israeli intelligence always so good? I think the simple answer is that the regimes they attack are hated by the people so much that it's easy for them to get spies. They have somehow neutralized a regional power in less than a week through air power alone.
-
Why is Israeli intelligence always so good? I think the simple answer is that the regimes they attack are hated by the people so much that it's easy for them to get spies. They have somehow neutralized a regional power in less than a week through air power alone.
Same reason all other successful countries are successful (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_Nations_Fail): a combination of strong human capital and strong institutions.
-
Why is Israeli intelligence always so good? I think the simple answer is that the regimes they attack are hated by the people so much that it's easy for them to get spies. They have somehow neutralized a regional power in less than a week through air power alone.
And yet they couldn't somehow see the buildup to Oct 7th?
They have done some damage, but I don't think I'd consider Iran 'neutralized'. Bombs rarely decide things in the long run, despite the fervent wish of technologically dominant countries that it be true.
-
I think Netanyahu has played Biden and Trump like a fiddle.
-
Why is Israeli intelligence always so good? I think the simple answer is that the regimes they attack are hated by the people so much that it's easy for them to get spies. They have somehow neutralized a regional power in less than a week through air power alone.
And yet they couldn't somehow see the buildup to Oct 7th?
It was exactly what Netanyahu needed, at exactly the right time. It came from the group that the Israeli PM personally OK'd sending briefcases of money to keep in power in order to prevent a single Palestinian government from taking hold. It happened after Israel put religious extremists in charge of internal security, and after they had been purposely ramping up police attacks against Palestinians in Gaza. There had been internal briefings indicating that his government’s policies had weakened Israel’s deterrence and that terrorist groups thought their moment was at hand.
“It is not true that the political system was not alerted to the October 7 disaster. For months, the prime minister and cabinet ministers received a series of severe and unprecedented warnings, and did nothing” - Yair Lapid, Opposition Party member and guy who was in many of the meetings that Netanyahu shrugged off - (https://www.timesofisrael.com/lapid-says-netanyahu-knew-for-months-before-oct-7-that-a-violent-eruption-was-looming/ (https://www.timesofisrael.com/lapid-says-netanyahu-knew-for-months-before-oct-7-that-a-violent-eruption-was-looming/))
Netanyahu certainly had a good idea that something like October 7th was coming. He may have been surprised by the severity of the attack and the number dead, but I think he wanted a big distraction and reason to invade Gaza to pull some of the political heat off himself. And he got it.
-
Rather than view this as Iran developing a nuke or not, consider the cheapest alternative. Iran did the cheapest thing to threaten developing a nuke, without actually doing so. That fits the U.S. intelligence assessment that Iran has not been trying to build a bomb since 2003.
There's a video showing all the times Netanyahu has claimed Iran is about to get a nuke, starting in the 1990s and running until now. In some of those clips, he breaks down how long it will take to get material, and how long to develop a bomb. Developing a bomb (and testing) requires over a year. So based on what Netanyahu said in the past, even if Iran produces enough U-235 to make a bomb, they still need to spend time developing the bomb, and adapting it for use atop a missile.
-
Israel certainly seems to have its problems, political problems for sure. But in comparison to Iran’s leadership’s constant poor behavior (tantrum chants to destroy The West and America while developing nukes, doubling down on manufacturing drones for Putin to kill Ukrainians, social suppression of its own population in ways that would cause all of us to revolt against our own governments) I have to see them as a real threat that must be stopped.
Do those of you who criticize Israel hope to see Iran’s leadership prevail?
-
Rather than view this as Iran developing a nuke or not, consider the cheapest alternative. Iran did the cheapest thing to threaten developing a nuke, without actually doing so. That fits the U.S. intelligence assessment that Iran has not been trying to build a bomb since 2003.
There's a video showing all the times Netanyahu has claimed Iran is about to get a nuke, starting in the 1990s and running until now. In some of those clips, he breaks down how long it will take to get material, and how long to develop a bomb. Developing a bomb (and testing) requires over a year. So based on what Netanyahu said in the past, even if Iran produces enough U-235 to make a bomb, they still need to spend time developing the bomb, and adapting it for use atop a missile.
Remember when his chart looked like it came from Wile E. Coyote? Who is the audience for a graphic like that?
This is from 2012.
-
Israel certainly seems to have its problems, political problems for sure. But in comparison to Iran’s leadership’s constant poor behavior (tantrum chants to destroy The West and America while developing nukes, doubling down on manufacturing drones for Putin to kill Ukrainians, social suppression of its own population in ways that would cause all of us to revolt against our own governments) I have to see them as a real threat that must be stopped.
Do those of you who criticize Israel hope to see Iran’s leadership prevail?
The US overthrew the democratically elected Iranian government in the 50s in order to install a king who the people didn't want but was friendly to US oil interests. Over the years the Shah's regime grew increasingly authoritarian to the people of Iran, using secret police to torture and murder those who spoke out against or protested the government - culminating in the eventual overthrow of that dictator and then instituting the current (in my view possibly worse) religious extremist dictatorship. Given this history, the 'tantrum' chants to destroy the West and America makes a lot more sense. Developing nukes also makes sense - they don't want America to take away their freedom by force again.
Do I hope Iran's leadership prevails? No! I don't like their support of terror organizations. I don't like the general human rights issues that go on in Iran. Generally I think that the rule of the Ayatollahs has been negative for Iran. That said, it's the government that they have. Israel's current policy of bombing it's enemies until there's peace seems unlikely to work. I think that Trump in his first term as president pulling out of the US/Iran nuclear treaty that Iran was complying with was a huge mistake. It showed that the US can't be trusted. Then Israel bombing Iran while negotiations with the US are going on further showed that the US can't be trusted. The peaceful path out of this problem is negotiation and strengthening of bonds - something that will be difficult with Trump (the great liar and promise breaker) and Netanyahu (a political opportunist war-monger who seems to always advocate for a shoot first ask questions later policy).
The problem with Iran's government is that they show no care for civilian life and there is a lot of religiously motivated hate in their actions. For a long time I've been told that Israel is the adult in the room, the example of sane leadership in the region. When Israel shows no care for civilian life and a lot of religiously motivated hate in their actions, it is something to be concerned about and shows a need to rethink assumptions - so yeah, seems sensible to be critical. The criticism isn't in hoping that Israel falls to it's enemies . . . but hope that they return to a less evil/genocidal path as a country. I want them to live up to what I've been told they are.
-
Israel certainly seems to have its problems, political problems for sure. But in comparison to Iran’s leadership’s constant poor behavior (tantrum chants to destroy The West and America while developing nukes, doubling down on manufacturing drones for Putin to kill Ukrainians, social suppression of its own population in ways that would cause all of us to revolt against our own governments) I have to see them as a real threat that must be stopped.
Do those of you who criticize Israel hope to see Iran’s leadership prevail?
The US overthrew the democratically elected Iranian government in the 50s in order to install a king who the people didn't want but was friendly to US oil interests. Over the years the Shah's regime grew increasingly authoritarian to the people of Iran, using secret police to torture and murder those who spoke out against or protested the government - culminating in the eventual overthrow of that dictator and then instituting the current (in my view possibly worse) religious extremist dictatorship. Given this history, the 'tantrum' chants to destroy the West and America makes a lot more sense. Developing nukes also makes sense - they don't want America to take away their freedom by force again.
Do I hope Iran's leadership prevails? No! I don't like their support of terror organizations. I don't like the general human rights issues that go on in Iran. Generally I think that the rule of the Ayatollahs has been negative for Iran. That said, it's the government that they have. Israel's current policy of bombing it's enemies until there's peace seems unlikely to work. I think that Trump in his first term as president pulling out of the US/Iran nuclear treaty that Iran was complying with was a huge mistake. It showed that the US can't be trusted. Then Israel bombing Iran while negotiations with the US are going on further showed that the US can't be trusted. The peaceful path out of this problem is negotiation and strengthening of bonds - something that will be difficult with Trump (the great liar and promise breaker) and Netanyahu (a political opportunist war-monger who seems to always advocate for a shoot first ask questions later policy).
The problem with Iran's government is that they show no care for civilian life and there is a lot of religiously motivated hate in their actions. For a long time I've been told that Israel is the adult in the room, the example of sane leadership in the region. When Israel shows no care for civilian life and a lot of religiously motivated hate in their actions, it is something to be concerned about and shows a need to rethink assumptions - so yeah, seems sensible to be critical. The criticism isn't in hoping that Israel falls to it's enemies . . . but hope that they return to a less evil/genocidal path as a country. I want them to live up to what I've been told they are.
We pretty much agree.
I hope for a new, stable government in Iran that stops threatening the US and Israel while actively developing nukes, an intact Ukraine, the end of Putin’ horrible regime, a more competent/less aggressive China with a more democratic/capitalist approach to government, an end to Trump and Yahoo.
While I find a lot to criticize with the US I think the non-totalitarian world is better off with us than the alternatives. A US that engages and negotiates with the world without resorting to unnecessary aggression is a good thing IMO.
I tend to look at options and relativities and try not to resort to whataboutisms in the process.
-
Keep in mind that most Iranians are very secular. The groups that overthrew the Shah were mostly secular too, but the religious fanatic element managed to take over in the end. So yes, it's a religious conflict - but if the 10% of Iranians who are zealots lose power, the rest of the country isn't interested in the conflict in that sense (they may be pissed enough from all the Israeli bombings that they're not super happy with Israel either, of course).
As "religious war" gets thrown about in this thread, it's also worth noting that Islam is not a monolithic religion. This is not as simple as religion vs. secularism. Most of Iran's Muslim neighbors have chosen a different path, one of peaceful economic development and diversification. So while this conflict is indeed motivated by religious ideology (Zionism included), it's clear that the old saying about all religions being essentially the same is BS. Whether it's militant Islam or Christian Nationalism, what an ideology teaches about violence and power really matters.
-
While I find a lot to criticize with the US I think the non-totalitarian world is better off with us than the alternatives. A US that engages and negotiates with the world without resorting to unnecessary aggression is a good thing IMO.
Engaging and negotiating is great. I feel like many from your country don't recognize the tremendous amount of destabilization that the CIA has done in your name around the world and how it has shaped many of the tragedies and problems that exist today.
It would be a very different world if the US hadn't ended democracy in Iran and pushed the country down the path of authoritarianism to secure oil rights. There are many in South America who were demonstrably worse off economically and democratically after CIA led coups took the governments of Ecuador (1963), Brazil (1964), Chile (1964/73), Bolivia (1964), and Panama (1981) - https://www.cato.org/research-briefs-economic-policy/consequences-cia-sponsored-regime-change-latin-america# (https://www.cato.org/research-briefs-economic-policy/consequences-cia-sponsored-regime-change-latin-america#). Or the overthrow of the democratically elected government in Haiti (1991) and current day support of corrupt human rights abuser Jovenel Moïse. Or the 2009 CIA backed coup in Honduras to overthrow democratically elected Manuel Zelaya.
The US has historically been a force of economic prosperity for Americans. The rest of the world has benefited . . . . when aligned with US interests. It will be interesting to see what the effect of Trump dismantling the US government has on future foreign policy and interventions around the world as China takes over the role the US once held as a world leader.
Keep in mind that most Iranians are very secular. The groups that overthrew the Shah were mostly secular too, but the religious fanatic element managed to take over in the end. So yes, it's a religious conflict - but if the 10% of Iranians who are zealots lose power, the rest of the country isn't interested in the conflict in that sense (they may be pissed enough from all the Israeli bombings that they're not super happy with Israel either, of course).
As "religious war" gets thrown about in this thread, it's also worth noting that Islam is not a monolithic religion. This is not as simple as religion vs. secularism. Most of Iran's Muslim neighbors have chosen a different path, one of peaceful economic development and diversification. So while this conflict is indeed motivated by religious ideology (Zionism included), it's clear that the old saying about all religions being essentially the same is BS. Whether it's militant Islam or Christian Nationalism, what an ideology teaches about violence and power really matters.
Religion tends to be deliberately vague. This lets it adapt to changes over time - it becomes a Rorschach test of the people who choose to follow it. Two people can read the same religious tome and come away with completely different interpretations. People reading it in different ages come away with completely different ideas of what their God was saying (just look at how Christianity has been used to both justify and outlaw slavery for example). It's not so much the ideology as the view of the current practitioners of the ideology that becomes important.
-
Keep in mind that most Iranians are very secular. The groups that overthrew the Shah were mostly secular too, but the religious fanatic element managed to take over in the end. So yes, it's a religious conflict - but if the 10% of Iranians who are zealots lose power, the rest of the country isn't interested in the conflict in that sense (they may be pissed enough from all the Israeli bombings that they're not super happy with Israel either, of course).
As "religious war" gets thrown about in this thread, it's also worth noting that Islam is not a monolithic religion. This is not as simple as religion vs. secularism. Most of Iran's Muslim neighbors have chosen a different path, one of peaceful economic development and diversification. So while this conflict is indeed motivated by religious ideology (Zionism included), it's clear that the old saying about all religions being essentially the same is BS. Whether it's militant Islam or Christian Nationalism, what an ideology teaches about violence and power really matters.
Religion tends to be deliberately vague. This lets it adapt to changes over time - it becomes a Rorschach test of the people who choose to follow it. Two people can read the same religious tome and come away with completely different interpretations. People reading it in different ages come away with completely different ideas of what their God was saying (just look at how Christianity has been used to both justify and outlaw slavery for example). It's not so much the ideology as the view of the current practitioners of the ideology that becomes important.
Religion is vague because it's deeply complex. It cannot be reduced to simply theism vs. atheism or obvious ritual practices. Pull on the "what is religion" thread long enough and you essentially get to it being what one thinks the purpose of life is. In other words, what's the bigger story one is living in. So I agree 100% that it's vague, but I would also add it's bigger than just if or where someone goes to worship. A secular hedonist (to be clear, I'm not disparaging, just using as an example) has all the hallmarks of religious devotion to what they believe to be the purpose of their life, from how they spend their money, the experiences they seek, and even ongoing rituals like how the weekend is used.
I agree that the Rorschach test is a good analogy. Anyone that's gone to seminary knows there's a lot of focus on hermeneutics, i.e. the lens with which one reads scripture. You can arrive at any number of predetermined conclusions depending on what agendas you bring. Christianity is understood as an embodied historical faith, so I think reading all of scripture within it's historical-cultural contextual is a more faithful approach, but indeed this hasn't always been the case. Slavery is a good example of this, as were the Crusades and the Inquisition.
But such issues are not limited to Christianity or religion in general. The Myth of Progress factors heavily into America's misadventures, from Manifest Destiny, to believing we'd be greeted as liberators in the Middle East.
All this to say, what matters is the content of the ideology, what's being taught and how it's being lived.
-
I have no idea what to think about this mess but since I do think a lot about disinformation, I found the heated exchange between Ted Cruz and Tucker Carlson about Iran to be fun… but also disheartening in that one analysis is that Cruz is a (paid? Dunno) Bibi puppet and Carlson is a (known paid) Putin puppet.
-
All this to say, what matters is the content of the ideology, what's being taught and how it's being lived.
TLDR - Religious or not . . . good people will be good and assholes will be assholes. :P
-
While I find a lot to criticize with the US I think the non-totalitarian world is better off with us than the alternatives. A US that engages and negotiates with the world without resorting to unnecessary aggression is a good thing IMO.
Engaging and negotiating is great. I feel like many from your country don't recognize the tremendous amount of destabilization that the CIA has done in your name around the world and how it has shaped many of the tragedies and problems that exist today.
It would be a very different world if the US hadn't ended democracy in Iran and pushed the country down the path of authoritarianism to secure oil rights. There are many in South America who were demonstrably worse off economically and democratically after CIA led coups took the governments of Ecuador (1963), Brazil (1964), Chile (1964/73), Bolivia (1964), and Panama (1981). Or the overthrow of the democratically elected government in Haiti (1991) and current day support of corrupt human rights abuser Jovenel Moïse. Or the 2009 CIA backed coup in Honduras to overthrow democratically elected Manuel Zelaya.
The US has historically been a force of economic prosperity for Americans. The rest of the world has benefited . . . . when aligned with US interests. It will be interesting to see what the effect of Trump dismantling the US government has on future foreign policy and interventions around the world as China takes over the role the US once held as a world leader.
Some people pay no attention to anything going on so there’s that. But the large majority of American’s understand what its government has done in the past.
I mean after the Dutch and British championed slavery here it lasted for 400 years, well after the revolution. Then we had abound 100 years of Jim Crow. We imprisoned Japanese American citizens during the WW2, deported 1.3+ million Mexicans including thousands of citizens in the 50s, and in the 60s we had the War in Vietnam and started a War on Drugs that increased the imprisonment of blacks and Hispanics by 7X. Starting after WW2 the government here became Machiavellian because they thought they had to to keep up with the USSR and did all the regime stuff you listed, and that attitude stuck to some extent after the Cold War was won. I mean for Christ sakes we just got out of a 2-decade war in the Middle East ourselves. The Americans you’re talking about that don’t know any of this probably haven’t started the 5th grade yet.
The view that America is some shining example of statehood, some beacon of light in the world is the height of naïveté. When was that EVER true???
The issue you need to confront is that fact that the world today—as always—is a dangerous place. The 20th Century alone should tell you that since we all know the atrocities and incredible violence suffered then. It’s not all rainbows and fairy tales, and America isn’t going to give any of that to anybody. American is going to do the right things sometimes and the wrong things sometimes. Get over it.
Countries choose their allies when they can, do their best to influence the lives of their citizens and others, and cope with whatever happens.
I’m a fairly patriotic American as we go. I can’t stand Trump and I think the 2-party system here is a disaster of major proportions. What am I gonna do? I’m probably gonna vote for a stupid Dem when I get the chance because it’s the best shot we got.
If I were you I’d be praying right now that America doesn’t screw up the current world order and let the China-Russia-Iran-NK alliance end up running the 21st Century. That’ll be tough enough for Americans like me. The rest…uh boy…
-
I have no idea what to think about this mess but since I do think a lot about disinformation, I found the heated exchange between Ted Cruz and Tucker Carlson about Iran to be fun… but also disheartening in that one analysis is that Cruz is a (paid? Dunno) Bibi puppet and Carlson is a (known paid) Putin puppet.
That would be funny if it weren’t so sad, and so true.
-
All this to say, what matters is the content of the ideology, what's being taught and how it's being lived.
TLDR - Religious or not . . . good people will be good and assholes will be assholes. :P
Off topic, but: Playful emoticon or not, this concept is useful to remember. I've met jerks in small environmental organizations, and wondered how could they be jerks? They are aiming for something good!
Or, I felt this cognitive dissonance about Musk since the "not a flamethrower" thing and the Thai cave rescue. In his case, it turned out that being a jerk was a warning.
-
The CIA was formed in 1947 and employed former Nazis. I only just learned about all this crap from this great podcast Patterns Tell Stories.
The CIA has been doing totally crazy shit ever since and the Nazis never went away in America and Nazi money is in American venture capital and openly Nazi individuals are in the government today — but it’s OK because now in addition to being white, a token few of them are Asian, Black and Jewish. /s
Oh and maybe the UFO disclosure stuff is getting a nice Christian overlay on it because religion is a wonderful way for Thiel/Palantir to manipulate the masses. (Since religion was brought up as a cause of conflict in this thread.)
It’s crazy how connected it all is. And while we get triggered by religion, brutality, morality or lack thereof….follow the money. That’s what it’s about.
-
The CIA was formed in 1947 and employed former Nazis. I only just learned about all this crap from this great podcast Patterns Tell Stories.
The CIA was formed from the OSS, which began in 1941 and combined functions of further precursor organizations.
They were crazy long before 1946.
And if you have to disqualify American organizations because they employed former nazis, you would have to go far, indeed.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Paperclip
As WWII wound down, there was a race on many fronts with the Soviet Union to secure resources, including land and brainpower.
-
All this to say, what matters is the content of the ideology, what's being taught and how it's being lived.
TLDR - Religious or not . . . good people will be good and assholes will be assholes. :P
Off topic, but: Playful emoticon or not, this concept is useful to remember. I've met jerks in small environmental organizations, and wondered how could they be jerks? They are aiming for something good!
Or, I felt this cognitive dissonance about Musk since the "not a flamethrower" thing and the Thai cave rescue. In his case, it turned out that being a jerk was a warning.
I've spent most of the last 25 years on the non-profit/social service sector and can attest that working for an organization 'doing good' in no way filters out jerks. In fact there is a cohort of people in the sector who 'come from wealth' and expect to be constantly lauded for the 'sacrifice' they are making by helping people (all while living in a $M house paid for by family etc). And most definitely feel and act like the rest of us are NPCs in their noble quest for the cause.
-
All this to say, what matters is the content of the ideology, what's being taught and how it's being lived.
TLDR - Religious or not . . . good people will be good and assholes will be assholes. :P
Off topic, but: Playful emoticon or not, this concept is useful to remember. I've met jerks in small environmental organizations, and wondered how could they be jerks? They are aiming for something good!
Or, I felt this cognitive dissonance about Musk since the "not a flamethrower" thing and the Thai cave rescue. In his case, it turned out that being a jerk was a warning.
I've spent most of the last 25 years on the non-profit/social service sector and can attest that working for an organization 'doing good' in no way filters out jerks. In fact there is a cohort of people in the sector who 'come from wealth' and expect to be constantly lauded for the 'sacrifice' they are making by helping people (all while living in a $M house paid for by family etc). And most definitely feel and act like the rest of us are NPCs in their noble quest for the cause.
I'll add to this little side excursion: what, exactly, is good anyway? In many places, including the Middle East, there are social norms that we regard as bad, whereas to the local population it is good. The same can be said of human history as well, with pretty much every ancient civilization having a very different (and offensive to us) understanding of what's good.
In many ways it's the people that are convinced they're doing good that I worry about the most.
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive.” -- C.S. Lewis