re: A Question For the "Israel Dragged us in" Crowd

The thing is we should be doing this even if Israel is not involved.

And I would support that 100%.

quote:

---

The thing is we should be doing this even if Israel is not involved.

---

Can I ask from a legitimate place of curiosity, why?

Because if you say they are an evil dictatorship, well there are plenty of those and we can't bomb them all

If you say, they hate America, well there are plenty of those also

And if you say they want to build nukes, our President said we obliterated that capability.

And if it's a combination of the 3, well there are other of those out there too, and we can't bomb them all

quote:

---

This will be by far the worst take of this thread. Educate yourself my frens

---

Please by all means show me the data supporting Iran not being a majority Shia nation in 2026.

Iran is 98-99% Muslim.
Iran is 90-95% Shia.

This range (90-95%) appears consistently in recent sources from 2023-2026, including Al Jazeera (2025), NDTV (2026), and U.S. government reports.

Even accepting that some percentage is lying to make the mullahs happy, there is zero objective data supporting the fact that Iran in 2026 is majority pro-western.

And im sure you realize Shia Islam is far more conservative than Sunni? You cannot be a moderate Shia without being an apostate.

PEW
Al Jazeera
State.gov

Did France hypothetically start a bunch of other regional wars that cost us billions with our involvement? Did they spy on our citizens and blackmail our politicians?

Straw man at its finest.

Iran, by the way, is also an extremely educated country

quote:

---

And this is from 3 years ago. It’s widely accepted that AT LEAST 90% within iran wants the regime gone. Do you really need evidence that 99% of the Diaspora wants it gone? It’s really shocking how misunderstood this country is

---

So one online survey.

And again, the data all suggests that the vast majority of Iranians are Shia so even if some portion of that nation is wanting a change it doesn’t mean it’s a pro western one.

quote:

---

Historical accounts from the period describe a sharp decline in his popularity leading up to the Iranian Revolution (1978–1979). By the time he fled Iran on January 16, 1979 (effectively deposed, with the monarchy ending shortly after on February 11), widespread public opposition had made his rule untenable. Massive protests, often involving millions in cities like Tehran, cycles of demonstrations, strikes (including by oil workers and civil servants), and violent crackdowns (e.g., Black Friday in September 1978) reflected broad discontent across diverse groups: religious conservatives, leftists, intellectuals, bazaar merchants, urban workers, and parts of the middle class.

---

You mean that shah?
Britanica

quote:

---

The IRGC was explicitly created after the 1979 Revolution as a parallel military force to safeguard the revolutionary regime and counter potential threats from the regular army (Artesh), which had ties to the deposed Shah. Its constitutional role is to protect the Islamic Republic’s ideological integrity (i.e., the revolution and velayat-e faqih, or guardianship of the Islamic jurist), not just territorial defense. Key points on its loyalty. The IRGC’s commander-in-chief is directly appointed by and reports only to the Supreme Leader.

---

quote:

---

Recent events (as of 2026) underscore this: Following Ali Khamenei’s death amid U.S.-Israeli strikes, the IRGC played a decisive role in elevating his son Mojtaba as Supreme Leader, with public pledges of allegiance to him. This highlights the Guard’s influence in regime continuity and its mutual dependence with the Supreme Leader’s office.

---

You mean that IRGC? The one that just chose the new Iranian leader?

Unless the US and Israel can co-opt a paramilitary group specifically chosen for their loyalty to their religious sect and who has their hand chosen leader currently in place the government isn’t going anywhere absent a ground invasion.

quote:

---

The thing is we should be doing this even if Israel is not involved.

And I would support that 100%.

---

How much is the rent in your head when someone is paying it instead of living there rent-free, like Israel is doing?

Can you type one fricking sentence without the word "Israel" in it?

What the hell did I just read

That analogy only works if you flatten everything into a cartoon.

The issue people are raising isn’t “France shouldn’t defend itself”—of course a nation has a right to defend itself against real threats. The issue is whether every action taken in response is justified, proportional, and morally defensible, especially when it involves large-scale civilian harm.

Your hypothetical conveniently removes all the complicating factors that exist in real life: (1) decades of historical conflict; (2) disputed land claims; (3) civilian populations caught in the middle; and (4) questions about proportionality and long-term strategy.

People aren’t criticizing because they think a country has no right to defend itself—they’re questioning how that defense is carried out and whether it crosses moral lines.

Also, invoking “lobbies” or “control” is a distraction. Most Americans support allies when they’re under attack. What people debate—and should debate—is whether U.S. involvement aligns with our interests, our values, and basic principles of just war.

A better framing is this:

“You can support a country’s right to defend itself while still scrutinizing its actions and opposing policies that harm civilians or escalate conflict unnecessarily.”

That’s not hypocrisy—that’s applying consistent moral standards instead of blind loyalty.