This is true but I suspect that attacks on remote, secret uranium enrichment facilities will not lead to particularly strong public outrage unless the Iranian government wants to stir up that outrage.

Imagine if Iran bombed remote, secret military bases on US soil and then bragged about it.

Do you think that there wouldn’t be public outrage, even if the US government tried to cover it up?

It isn’t about the nature of the target. It’s being targeted that raises hackles.

By that point in the war, Japan effectively had no military-industrial capability.

That’s not even close to true. Being horrifically outmatched is not the same as having no capacity.

The Way of the Horse and the Bone

Alright, well, I’ll tell whoever is in charge of the English language of your disapproval?

The Iranian people could be mobilized for war despite the odds if the Iranian government chose to do so, but the government itself can still be intimidated.

That’s just the problem - the nature of nationalism makes that abstract, realist negotiation extremely difficult. Extremely powerful countries can sometimes get away with it by the apathy of their citizens to far-off conflicts, but direct threats to a polity rally citizenry around even repulsive national governments - whether the national government wills it or no. Iran is no democracy, but it is still built on the compliance of its citizenry - if the opinions of the citizenry are not “We should lay down and take it” - an opinion rarely expressed even by highly outmatched peoples - then the Iranian government has no choice but to respond. Even if an overthrow of the government directly is not possible, internal politiking would spell doom for the careers of those who failed to take action, and propel ambitious politicians to the forefront.

You don’t need a democracy to have politiking.

(And, in the conflict you referenced in the meme, it was in fact an act of intimidation by the USA which ended that war.)

“Intimidation” is a funny way to describe wiping out two major military-industrial centers after four years of brutal warfare stripping Japan of all holdings east of the home islands and the surrender of all its allies.

However, my more central disagreement with you is that I think that this bombing should be thought of the start of a war as opposed to a potential alternative to war.

In which case the barking about peace from Trump is nonsense.

Iran might choose to make the war very brief by negotiating a surrender before further military action takes place, or Trump may be foolish enough to have started a war he does not intend to actually fight if Iran does not surrender immediately, but if I were Trump then I would not have ordered this attack unless I was ready and willing to fight until Iranian surrender.

1. Trump is foolish enough that anything is possible.

2. Again, using this to start another war in the Sandbox is just a different - and worse - flavor of foolishness than thinking “NOW is the time for PEACE”.

In short, arguments that the Iranian nuclear program has only been set back a small amount are only true if we don’t keep bombing them, but my conclusion from that is that we should keep bombing them now that we’ve decided to start. If we do, they can’t build a bomb.

… what level of bombing do you think would be necessary to maintain Iran’s inability to construct a nuclear weapon anywhere inside of Iran?

What level of military involvement do you think would be necessary for such an undertaking?

Phrasing statements as a question is a common way to express caution or, alternatively, disbelief that the statement needs to be made.

“Someone should probably tell him not to piss on an electric fence?”

So smaller list than the Zionist terrorists. Who we arm.

Israel’s current list of enemies is, what? Iran, Palestine, Syria, Lebanon, and the Houthis? Egypt and the Saudis et co are anything but enemies of Israel at present. Iraq desperately wants to stay out of the whole mess even as both sides trade missiles over Iraqi airspace.

Israel is committing genocide, which is a bit of a bigger deal than ‘merely’ supporting genocides and destabilizing governments for lunatic theocratic reasons. If you’re going to contrast Israel negatively with Iran, use that, not the comparable length of their list of enemies.

No like, what are those militias actually doing after getting Iranian training and supplies?

Fighting. Killing. Torturing. Intimidating their enemies and local governments. What militias and other paramilitaries in conflict zones generally do. They aren’t sitting around, polishing their rifles and fetching cats from trees, if that’s what you’re thinking.

I mean Iraq for example isn’t exactly in active conflict right?

Hundreds still die in ongoing sectarian conflict in Iraq every year, and Iranian-backed militias (most of which were supported and became powerful by Iran’s influence in the past two decades, not recently) muscling in by forces of arms is a major political issue.

The idea that using direct force as a means of intimidation hasn’t been viable since the rise of nationalism in the 19th century. Attacks like this are only useful insofar as they can cripple an enemy - in the case of both Japan-US in WW2 and US-Iran now, such is not the case.

At best, their nuclear program has been setback a few years - at worst, only a few months. And in both cases, the perception that it is necessary will have been strengthened considerably.

This is only a non-foolish move if, in context, either a war is going to start very soon or Iran’s government is about to be overthrown. The latter I wouldn’t count on; the former is just a different form of foolishness - and a worse one at that.

tl;dr; sucker-punching someone in the face is not how you make them eager for peace. It’s how you make them realize that all you understand is war, which is a bit antithetical to negotiating a lasting peace.

What do you mean “what are they doing with those people”?

They support their catspaws militarily. Training, supplies, and direct action - as the IRGC in particular has been caught time and time again fighting directly in service to various Iranian-linked militias in conflict zones, including Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Yemen, and Afghanistan.

Oh who are their enemies?

Most of the Middle East outside of North Africa. Lebanon, Jordan, the Saudis et co, Syria now, hot-cold relationship with Iraq. Israel, obviously; but less obviously, also Fatah. Ukraine, bizarrely enough, which has a dozen IRGC kills to their military’s name.

I don’t remember us electing a used sock since Carter.

I mean Iran is, for the most part, pretty peaceful. They pretty much only attack when attacked.

What the ever-loving fuck.

But geopolitically they’re a pretty good neighbor

Fucking what.

Iran should not have been bombed by this administration. But they’re the only force in the region worse than the Saudis for funding proxies and shipping paramilitaries to attack their enemies.

Apparently, the entire multi-year fight resulting in hundreds-of-billions cut from the military budget by Obama is all forgotten as soon as people want to beat the “DEMS BAD” drum.

That might be true in broad strokes, but Stalin was an exceptionally brutal and stupid individual. Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin, all, I think, were on a very authoritarian road, but Stalin’s autocracy was probably the worst of the lot. A caricature of a strongman.

MAGA don’t want world war 3. Only Zionists and their neocon puppets in the US government.

… who do you think MAGA are, again?

Can you imagine Trump saying that Muslims are not our enemy, a few days after one of the most culturally shattering attacks on US soil? Or advocating for immigration reform? Or delivering a radio address in Spanish to a Spanish-speaking audience?

Bush Jr. deserves a noose for his war crimes. But Trump is simply utterly devoid of any worthwhile human qualities, from wig to bone spurs.

If only Trump’s incompetence and evil only sank to the depths that Bush did.

Only if we don’t have to let the survivor out when it’s through.

At least Iran isn’t a world-class power, I guess, but it’s not really any less stupid.