Religion Mid East Religious War, Now with added USA Involvement!

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
The reality is, there is no way that there's going to be regime change in Iran unless the people want to revolt. The US and Israel dropping bombs on Iran is far more likely to make the people support their leadership against the US and Israel.

You can't start a revolution in a country by dropping bombs on it.
 
Phatguysrule said:
The reality is, there is no way that there's going to be regime change in Iran unless the people want to revolt. The US and Israel dropping bombs on Iran is far more likely to make the people support their leadership against the US and Israel.

You can't start a revolution in a country by dropping bombs on it.
Click to expand...

And you make a lot of Islamic extremists outside of Iran that we aren't targeting into allies of Iran.
 
PCmor7 said:
And you make a lot of Islamic extremists outside of Iran that we aren't targeting into allies of Iran.
Click to expand...
Absolutely. If you wanted to hurt the American position in Iran, bombing them was probably the right call.
 
Last edited:
IMO, the Iranian people will over throw the clerics and islamist Sharia law. The people want freedom form that kind of oppression. There needs to be more support for the Iranian people in here.
 
Hoopguru said:
IMO, the Iranian people will over throw the clerics and islamist Sharia law. The people want freedom form that kind of oppression. There needs to be more support for the Iranian people in here.
Click to expand...
I support the Iranian people. That's why I don't think we should be dropping bombs on Iran.
 
Phatguysrule said:
I support the Iranian people. That's why I don't think we should be dropping bombs on Iran.
Click to expand...
Bombs were not dropping on 'Iran'.
If that was the case you would have seen videos of ruined cities and dead bodies.
They were dropping on IRGC facilities.
Which in fact - is in favour of the Iraninan people opposing the IRGC.
What do you think happend in Lebanon? Did Israel bomb 'Lebanon'? Or did it do the best they can to hit Hizballah facilities?
If you ask Lebanese people today if they are glad Hizballa is no longer the force it used to be - they are thrilled about it and happy the Lebanese gov is finally able to rule in the south with the Lebanese army.
This can translate very simillarly to Iran.
The IRGC losing its grip, finance, powers - can lead to Iranian people gaining control of their own.
 
2Fluffy4U said:
Bombs were not dropping on 'Iran'.
If that was the case you would have seen videos of ruined cities and dead bodies.
They were dropping on IRGC facilities.
Which in fact - is in favour of the Iraninan people opposing the IRGC.
What do you think happend in Lebanon? Did Israel bomb 'Lebanon'? Or did it do the best they can to hit Hizballah facilities?
If you ask Lebanese people today if they are glad Hizballa is no longer the force it used to be - they are thrilled about it and happy the Lebanese gov is finally able to rule in the south with the Lebanese army.
This can translate very simillarly to Iran.
The IRGC losing its grip, finance, powers - can lead to Iranian people gaining control of their own.
Click to expand...
Bombing a country will not win the population over to your side. It's far more likely to push them away from you and toward their current leadership.
 
Phatguysrule said:
Bombing a country will not win the population over to your side. It's far more likely to push them away from you and toward their current leadership.
Click to expand...
You seem to not get what I am saying.
Even Iranians know their COUNTRY was not bombed. The IRGC was.
In addition, I advise sooner than later to shake off the western mentalitly of 'winning the population'.
Globally speaking - winning population does not mean anything. Ruling populations does.
In Jordan - the people are being ruled by a minority Kingdom.
In Egypt - the ruler is not what most population want.
In Isreal - the ruler is around 60-40 in deficit in popularity and still rules.
You can almost say the same about the US where the ruler is not the most popular person for the job. (If we count # votes vs electorals).

Being popular or accepted by the population is good and nice. But is by no mean a prerequisite for ruling.

I dont care what iraninas think of Israel, I dont need them to like me or my country.
I need their leaders to not threaten me with nukes and build terror bases on my borders and within.
I do hope this view changes and that is by hoping the IRGC is replaced by non-religious fanatics. (And I wish the same for Israel who is recently growing in religious zealotness).
You know why religious conflicts rise? Cause it is a tool by rulers to control the mobs (this popularity you speak of).
Once people change thier OS and are able to be moved not by hate or blind empty slogans, then perhaps people will learn to live and prosper side by side.
But you just cant apply 'A' rules (values, perceptions, views) on reality 'B' and expect it to translate the way you think.
 
Phatguysrule said:
Bombing a country will not win the population over to your side. It's far more likely to push them away from you and toward their current leadership.
Click to expand...
I would also argue, and apolgies as this can be harsh analogy - that your comment can translate and is not that much different than telling a women who is being gaslighted by her spouse that she should stay with him because if she leaves him he will just get madder and might hurt her.. no. There is no winning over - there is just taking care of yourself.
If so by happens the guy actually decides to go to therapy and realises his wrongdoings and able to change? That is awsome (and this is where I am hoping Iran could be right now). But that is defenitly not the reason or goal for this whole current clashing.
 
2Fluffy4U said:
You seem to not get what I am saying.
Even Iranians know their COUNTRY was not bombed. The IRGC was.
In addition, I advise sooner than later to shake off the western mentalitly of 'winning the population'.
Globally speaking - winning population does not mean anything. Ruling populations does.
In Jordan - the people are being ruled by a minority Kingdom.
In Egypt - the ruler is not what most population want.
In Isreal - the ruler is around 60-40 in deficit in popularity and still rules.
You can almost say the same about the US where the ruler is not the most popular person for the job. (If we count # votes vs electorals).

Being popular or accepted by the population is good and nice. But is by no mean a prerequisite for ruling.

I dont care what iraninas think of Israel, I dont need them to like me or my country.
I need their leaders to not threaten me with nukes and build terror bases on my borders and within.
I do hope this view changes and that is by hoping the IRGC is replaced by non-religious fanatics. (And I wish the same for Israel who is recently growing in religious zealotness).
You know why religious conflicts rise? Cause it is a tool by rulers to control the mobs (this popularity you speak of).
Once people change thier OS and are able to be moved not by hate or blind empty slogans, then perhaps people will learn to live and prosper side by side.
But you just cant apply 'A' rules (values, perceptions, views) on reality 'B' and expect it to translate the way you think.
Click to expand...

2Fluffy4U said:
I would also argue, and apolgies as this can be harsh analogy - that your comment can translate and is not that much different than telling a women who is being gaslighted by her spouse that she should stay with him because if she leaves him he will just get madder and might hurt her.. no. There is no winning over - there is just taking care of yourself.
If so by happens the guy actually decides to go to therapy and realises his wrongdoings and able to change? That is awsome (and this is where I am hoping Iran could be right now). But that is defenitly not the reason or goal for this whole current clashing.
Click to expand...
I was responding to the idea that current actions could help encourage regime change.

I disagree with that wholeheartedly.

You're not going to get regime change without a revolution. That's a popular uprising of the people.

Without that nothing is going to change.

Israel started bombing Iran. Not the other way around. The US joined in with Israel.

The more bombing that happens within Iranian borders the more likely you are to see Iran embrace their current leadership.
 
From what I understand in talking with Iranian people there is a revolution against sharia law and the Theocracy. People dont want to live under such rule, would you?
 
Hoopguru said:
From what I understand in talking with Iranian people there is a revolution against sharia law and the Theocracy. People dont want to live under such rule, would you?
Click to expand...
Bombing them will cause any such revolution to lose support and support will shift toward the current leadership. The more we do it the more likely current leadership will retain power.

That's just human nature.
 
Phatguysrule said:
Bombing them will cause any such revolution to lose support and support will shift toward the current leadership. The more we do it the more likely current leadership will retain power.

That's just human nature.
Click to expand...
I think revolution in that country has been brewing especially since the bombing of reactors. Who woukd want to have daughters under sharia law? Its only because of oppression by force they have thrown out the crazy clerics.
 
Hoopguru said:
I think revolution in that country has been brewing especially since the bombing of reactors. Who woukd want to have daughters under sharia law? Its only because of oppression by force they have thrown out the crazy clerics.
Click to expand...
Why would the bombing of reactors cause them to revolt?
 
Phatguysrule said:
At about 2:15 he specifies that it must be a bottom up revolution and not die to foreign intervention.

That's what I'm advocating for.
Click to expand...
No doubt. As he said - it should be bottom up and from within and no due to foreign intervention.

Do note Israel and US didn't kill political leaders (the supreme leader or his people) - they only targeted IRGC facilities and military powers.

The effect of that is many folds:
1. The leader is not 'de-throned' by foreigns.
2. The actual power of the supreme leader is reduced.
3. People are not pleased with the leader on all sides - learning that the Iranian cities are just left unguarded and at the mercy of others..

This could indeed potentially lead to coup de tat, internal power shifts and more.

The bottom line is that however you choose to look at it:
A. There is no guarantee a revolution will insue.
B. The odds for revolution are higher today than prior to current clash.
 
Phatguysrule said:
At about 2:15 he specifies that it must be a bottom up revolution and not die to foreign intervention.

That's what I'm advocating for.
Click to expand...
Yeah...bottom up the People . Pretty apparent that if Israel & US wanted to take the regime down it would done.
 
UN Atomic Watchdog Exits Iran, Deepening Inspections Blackout

(Bloomberg) -- The United Nations atomic watchdog is said to have pulled its last remaining inspectors out of Iran following the implementation of a new law that criminalizes international monitoring, deepening the blackout over Tehran’s nuclear program.

The last International Atomic Energy Agency specialists were safely withdrawn from Tehran on Friday to the Vienna-based agency, according to a western diplomat, who asked not to be identified discussing sensitive information. It’s the first time since Iran began enriching uranium two decades ago that IAEA monitors — who conducted almost 500 inspections in the Islamic Republic last year — have been expelled from the country.

The withdrawal is likely to draw swift rebukes from Western governments, which have been urging Tehran to allow a resumption of IAEA visits since a ceasefire in the Israel-Iran war last month. Instead, the Israeli decision to bomb nuclear sites and military targets on June 13 has effectively put up a barrier, ending oversight of whether Iran is capable of developing a weapons program.

The 274 IAEA monitors accredited to conduct inspections had been verifying the location of Iran’s 409 kilograms (902 pounds) of near-bomb-grade uranium, which is now unknown.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/worl...an-deepening-inspections-blackout/ar-AA1HYhoN
 
Israel’s War on Iran Backfired
Despite what it claims, Israel failed to achieve its goals in its latest war.

Twelve days of war between Israel and Iran left a trail of devastation across both countries. Yet the clearest takeaway is this: Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s bold gamble failed. Despite launching one of the most audacious military campaigns in Israel’s history, the war was short, punishing, and ultimately fell far short of its declared aims.

It began with a meticulously planned Israeli offensive. Years of intelligence work culminated in a wave of covert operations—drones assembled inside Iran, sleeper cells detonating bombs, and targeted assassinations of top military figures and scientists. These were followed by conventional airstrikes on military bases and nuclear facilities such as Natanz and Fordow. But Israel’s targets extended well beyond strategic infrastructure. Residential neighborhoods, prisons, media offices, and police stations were also hit, pointing to a broader strategy aimed at sowing chaos and igniting internal unrest.

The human toll was staggering. In Iran, at least 610 people were killed, including 49 women, 13 children, and five health care workers. Another 4,746 were injured, among them 20 health care workers. Medical infrastructure also suffered significant damage, with hospitals, ambulances, and emergency facilities hit. In Israel, Iranian missile and drone strikes killed at least 28 people and injured over 3,200. More than 9,000 Israelis were displaced, and dozens of homes and public buildings were damaged or destroyed.

As the dust settles, the true extent of the damage inside Iran remains unclear. This lack of clarity reveals a core dilemma for Israel and its U.S. allies: Military power alone cannot guarantee strategic success.

Despite Netanyahu’s vow to dismantle Iran’s missile and nuclear programs, and his thinly veiled hope that regime change would follow, Iran responded swiftly. Missiles were launched at Israeli cities and strategic targets. After the United States joined the conflict by bombing Iran’s nuclear sites, Tehran escalated further by striking Al Udeid Air Base, a U.S. military installation in Qatar, drawing Washington deeper into the crisis. Though telegraphed and limited in impact, the strike on Al Udeid sent a deliberate message: Iran could raise the stakes beyond its borders.

Within just 12 days of Israel’s initial strike, a cease-fire was reached under opaque terms, leaving the region in a state of uneasy pause.

There is no question that Israel achieved notable tactical successes, inflicting serious damage on Iran’s military command and scientific infrastructure. But strategic objectives carry greater weight. Based on available evidence, Netanyahu’s core goals—undermining Iran’s deterrence and meaningfully rolling back the elements of its nuclear program that pose the greatest proliferation risk—remain unmet.

One of the most significant failures lies in the nuclear file. There is no confirmation that Iran’s nuclear breakout capacity has been meaningfully degraded. While Trump administration officials have insisted that the strikes set Iran’s program back by years, early U.S. and European intelligence assessments suggest otherwise. Satellite imagery taken prior to the strikes showed trucks potentially removing sensitive equipment from key sites, and Iran had already announced the construction of a new, secret, and hardened enrichment facility that may be untouched. More critically, Iran’s stockpile of 60 percent enriched uranium and its advanced centrifuges—the core ingredients for developing a nuclear weapon—appear to remain intact. As many analysts warned before the war, verifying serious damage to Iran’s nuclear infrastructure is impossible without on-the-ground inspections or a full-scale invasion. In the absence of either, Iran’s nuclear program is entering a far more opaque and unpredictable phase.

This opacity is already taking shape. Just two days after U.S. President Donald Trump announced the cease-fire, Iran’s parliament passed legislation to suspend cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency. One lawmaker offered a revealing explanation: “Why was our nuclear facility attacked and you remained silent? Why did you give the green light for these actions? Today, they want to come again and conduct inspections to determine which sites were damaged and which were not so they can attack them again.” In response, Tehran appears set to embrace a strategy of “nuclear ambiguity,” similar to the posture Israel itself has long maintained—refusing to clarify the scope of its nuclear capabilities and denying access to inspectors.

This marks a dangerous new chapter. By attacking nuclear sites while continuing to demand inspections and sanctions, the United States and Israel have undermined the logic of nonproliferation diplomacy. Ironically, their actions may have done more to normalize the idea of an Iranian nuclear weapon than any step taken by Tehran itself.

While the nuclear outcome is uncertain, Iran’s missile capabilities were demonstrated with unmistakable clarity. Its ballistic missiles successfully penetrated Israeli and U.S. air defenses, targeting military bases, intelligence compounds, oil refineries, and research centers. Although Israeli censorship limited public reporting, more than 41,000 compensation claims were filed for war-related damage.

The material and economic costs were also significant. Ben Gurion Airport was shut down, economic activity slowed dramatically, and capital flight increased. Missile defense systems such as Arrow and THAAD were heavily depleted, with estimates indicating that Israel used at least $500 million worth of U.S. THAAD interceptors. Former Trump advisor Steve Bannon bluntly asserted that the cease-fire was necessary to “save Israel,” which he said was absorbing “brutal hits” and running low on defenses. Trump himself admitted that Israel had been hit “very hard” and, in the same press appearance, announced that China would be allowed to purchase Iranian oil to help Iran “get back into shape.”

Iran’s missile strikes also appeared deliberately calibrated. Following an Israeli drone strike targeting an Iranian oil refinery in the South Pars gas field, Iran responded by targeting a refinery in Haifa. After Israeli airstrikes targeted Iranian research centers suspected of involvement in nuclear activities, Iran retaliated by striking the Weizmann Institute of Science near Tel Aviv—a facility long suspected of playing a role in Israel’s own nuclear research. Through these reciprocal attacks, Iran aimed to signal its capacity for measured retaliation and to reinforce its deterrence posture. Notably, both sides refrained from targeting energy infrastructure after the initial exchange.

Beyond the battlefield, the war had significant social and political consequences inside Iran. Rather than sparking regime collapse, it led to a visible surge in nationalist sentiment. For a society long polarized by repression and economic suffering, the war became a unifying moment—not around the Islamic Republic itself but around the idea of defending the nation from foreign aggression.

Timing compounded this sense of national solidarity. The war came just as Iran was engaged in nuclear negotiations with the Trump administration. Many Iranians had hoped that the recent election of reformist President Masoud Pezeshkian, who campaigned on diplomacy and economic recovery, would lead to meaningful progress. Instead, they saw their country bombed while seeking compromise.

In response, a broad cross-section of Iranian society—from artists and athletes to both religious and secular Iranians, including many from Gen Z—mobilized to support one another. Civilians opened their homes to the displaced. The deaths of children, doctors, and ordinary people from indiscriminate Israeli strikes reinforced a perception that this war was not about liberating Iranians but about breaking apart the country.

The long-held belief by many in Washington that Iran’s government only needs one final external push to fall has been thoroughly discredited. Netanyahu launched this war to eliminate the strategic challenge posed by Iran. Instead, he exposed Israel’s vulnerabilities, intensified Iranian nationalism, and failed to destroy Iran’s core military and nuclear capabilities.

Paradoxically, the war may end up bolstering Iran’s position both regionally and diplomatically. While Trump and his envoy Steve Witkoff continue to insist that Iran must abandon all uranium enrichment, Tehran has remained firm that enrichment is nonnegotiable. Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has publicly reaffirmed that Iran will never give up this right. At the same time, Trump has suggested a willingness to ease sanctions and even allow Chinese purchases of Iranian oil, framing this as part of “great progress” toward regional calm.

These mixed signals reflect a deeper reality: Both Washington and Tehran appear increasingly focused on stabilizing the situation rather than resolving the underlying nuclear dispute. According to CNN, the Trump administration has been engaged in behind-the-scenes talks—some held even during the height of the war—that propose up to $30 billion in investment for a civilian nuclear program in Iran, contingent on Iran forgoing enrichment. These proposals also include sanctions relief and access to frozen Iranian funds. While U.S. officials maintain that zero enrichment is a red line, the push for a new deal suggests a shift in priorities.

In practice, both sides may now be willing to accept strategic ambiguity. Rather than demanding the dismantlement of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure that Trump claims is already destroyed, the United States appears open to de-escalation through diplomacy and economic incentives. For its part, Iran seems content to preserve its existing capabilities in an opaque manner while avoiding further escalation. This mutual pragmatism may allow for de-escalation, but it leaves the core nuclear issue unresolved—and potentially more dangerous in the long run.

https://archive.is/5xqSI
 
https://jcpa.org/winners-and-losers-of-the-12-day-israel-iran-war/

"The World: Safer Than Before
The 12-day war could have become a regional disaster. Instead, it was bounded, focused, and effective. The world now faces a weakened Iran. Its nuclear program is degraded. Its missile arsenal is halved. Its proxies are silent. Its credibility is shattered.

Clausewitz wrote that war is the use of force to compel an enemy to do your will. Israel compelled Iran to stop. The United States reinforced that outcome. Iran, for all its threats and weapons, could not impose its will on anyone.

The true winner of this war is not only Israel or the United States. It is the international system. A nuclear threshold state was pushed back. A regime that has fueled terror across continents has been checked. And the principle that force can be used morally and precisely, in defense of peace, was upheld."

This article is in reply to previous post.
Opinion articles are just that - opinion articles.

I disagree with the claim of "..Backfired"
Feel free to disagree with the article I posted..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top