That should go well…did the mullahs even say thank you?
4 Likes
Though it could well get close to those numbers. The Lancet estimated 64k this time last year. Add another year of massacres, deaths from injuries and other mortality related to sanitation, nutrition etc
1 Like
The critical difference is that Bush’s neocons had other aspirations. Utterly naive, hopelessly oversimplified, but they thought they would leave the region better at least on terms that mattered to them. This crowd have no such hopes.
2 Likes
No,it is not the same, Ifthikar. There is an ethical difference that actually matters. There is also a strategic goal that matters.
The neocons wanted Iraq to blossom (as an ally of course), the US pushed an obscene amount of money into Iraq (and of course Afghanistan, but that is a different caase entirely). Grave mistakes were made (which later led the West to conclude that dictators were better than revolutionaries, particularly post-Libya and ISIS; which is the only reason why Assad wasn’t toppled when he should have been).
Intent matters a lot and not only ethically.
The point I was trying to make, using Clarkson, is that Trump and Netanyahu is not interested in helping the Iranian people or rebuilding it’s nation so it can become stable post-war. You see the difference there from neocons, right ? Iraq has been propped up by the victor (US) post-war. There is no such intention regarding Iran. Iran will be left a wreck and if the regime falls ir falls, but there is no plan to stabilise Iran post-war. No plan at all.
It is smash and go-
Certainly, if health and sanitation collapse and you have a densely packed population that can go nowhere, you could reach those numbers.
1 Like
Thank you. I didn’t see you wrote this as I wrote my piece.
It often frustrates me that since the Bush era has this terrible history, people do not understand the difference between intent and indeed outcome of second Iraq war, to other wars launched with far more cynical aspirations.
1 Like
I get what you are saying @Magnus @Arminius . My point is, without a plan, and the efforts to put that plan in place, all those ‘adventures’ were distained to fail. Critically, they never seemed to take lesson from one failure, and repeated it elsewhere.
2 Likes
If/when you take out a nuclear facility, wouldn’t that create a nuclear fallout?
They have taken lessons from that awful experience (at least in Europe). The West has been allergic to military intervention in the Middle East since Libya. As I wrote above, this allowed Assad to continue despite massacring large parts of his population and the fact that a humanitarian intervention would cost very little for the West. The fact that the West did NOT intervene, is a tragedy but a direct consequence of failed post-war outcomes in the ME.
But now Trump is there and he is flexible and easily manipulated by autocrats and strong men like Netanyahu.
Anyway, the point I am trying to make is that Israel and Trump do not give a flying fuck about what happens to Iran after they have defeated it (and I suppose I am trying to say that this is Extra Dangerous!!!). They don’t care. There is no, even half witted, benign idea behind this. It is pure zero sum and if Iran disintegrates then so be it.
1 Like
It would create a mess. Fallout is irradiated particles from fission products and is sent high into the atmosphere from a nuclear explosion.
Bombing centrifuges is likely to spread the radioactive debris in the immediate area, but these are likely to be in an enclosed area.
Still a dreadful mess to clean up. (You would probably be talking decades.)
3 Likes
But the debris and the dust wont be enclosed, right, and they can be carried by the wind?
Which is in fact the fundamental theme of Schlesinger Jr.'s critique of American foreign policy..that he wrote all the way back in 1952.
1 Like
https://x.com/DefMon3/status/1934906525962682515
https://x.com/Osinttechnical/status/1934973671241855074
(they tow jets you don’t see).
Again, I agree with this assessement
https://x.com/NotWoofers/status/1934966770407707047
https://x.com/NotWoofers/status/1934987740262568231
I thought their facilities were based in a mountain? It would have a risk of some escape, but it wouldn’t be a black rain type scenario.
Actually, it is probably Uranium Hexafluoride which would likely go gaseous in an explosion, but I doubt it would carry that far.
2 Likes
Iran is trying. The charade on twitter among the large sum of pro Iranian delusional people is basically this (I don’t know if I should laugh or cry)
it’s proof Israel can’t hide behind civilian centers while launching relentless strikes on sovereign nations. Iran’s calibrated responses don’t seek chaos; they demand accountability for decades of Israeli aggression that the world conveniently ignores. Real intelligence knows Iran’s defense is measured, strategic, and rooted in preserving regional stability, unlike Israel’s blatant escalation tactics.
When Israel fires first, Iran defends meticulously
no hubris, just resolve.
The idea that Iran, close to military defeat, is meticulously playing a calculated escalation game is beyond bonkers insane. But thousands of people thinks the above on the internet. Some of them with higher education.
1 Like
It’s becoming more and more clear that the heavy bombing is about to take place tonight or tomorrow.
Yes, unless one makes the mistake of believing Trump is not lying like normally, yes. All signs points to US intervention, despite Trump’s lies.
Of course, a more normal president that is not a total crack-head, would have issued Iran an ultimatum and done things by the book. Because there exists no ultimatum at all from the US. Just immature and pathetic Truth Social rants that can be intepreted in at least 7 different ways.
3 Likes
https://x.com/RadioFreeTom/status/1935005865750491457
He has been sniffing glue again.
1 Like