He did? You are aware Iran started its nuclear program in the 1950s with US support, yes? Now critiquing what that program became under the Islamic Republic, that's certainly fair game, but Obama most certainly didn't put them on that path.
Israel hasn’t managed to “decimate” anything except for innocent Palestinian civilians.
Iran is losing its ability to defend itself.
Here's a thought.......maybe the ASS-k-NAZI Entity will dissolve Israel apologize to the Palestinians for the terrorism they have caused and pay them reparations . The morale of the story : Don't try to create a country in an area which is already populated !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And yet none of those really did much damage. We can see that when they want to actually do damage, they can.
You believe Iran has the right to fund militias in Gaza, Lebanon, and Yemen to disrupt the entire region?
This really isn't something to cheer, because for whatever the Islamic Republic is, what grows out of chaos tends to be worse. Interestingly enough, we have Iraq as a clear example of what can happen when a despicable leader gets removed and what comes after. The end result of that nation building exercise left an Iraq who was once an enemy of Iran and attacked it with US support, to now a Shia aligned country with close ties to Iran. Let's also not forget the chaos in between then, with ISIL growing out of that chaos.
How should she know what they're up to? It's not like she has access to any reliable intelligence.
I think what should be in the minds of Iranians right now is whether there are enough bomb shelters in Tehran to protect them from Israeli missiles.
Ask the 50,000 dead innocent civilians in Gaza. Oh, you can't...
I believe that Iran has the right to assist the Palestinians and to prevent their genocide.
That's an interesting question, which in the course of human history has meant those with the might have the "right". The US and other western nations have done this throughout the world, and in this particular region, their actions are what led to much of the mess it's in now.
Exert influence, much like other nations have done. Iran is a Shia nation surrounded by mostly Sunni nations, so it's been keen on empowering those who subscribe to that form of Islam, who have been suppressed minorities in Sunni Muslim nations. One can critique the means, but it is the same desire other powerful states seek to exert their influence in their region.
I don't have an accounting of who is the regional leader of sponsoring terrorism in the region, but the main players there all do. The small monied Persian Gulf states have (and do), and the Saudis most certainly have, with one of those groups (Al Qaeda) leading the largest terrorist attack on US soil.
Their position is one against the invasion of European Zionists into Israel and dispossessing the Palestinians. I say this to answer your question, and not to justify their position. This was the view of many of Israel's Arab neighbors because the founding of Israel contains this hard fact along with the actions of Arab nations to attack Israel as well. Over the years Iran's response has been to counter the growth of Israel's power, and since it cannot achieve that directly though military force and technology, it applies its pressure through the various groups it uses as proxies.
That's a position to take, as are the consequences.
And how exactly do you think Iran is doing that?
Well, there are short term concerns and long term concerns. It's the long term ones that are going to have significant consequences. Israel isn't going to attack Iranian facilities and military targets forever, and since it is not invading Iran, all it's done is cause temporary chaos. The tough part for the Israelis now is having to deal with yet more violence and another conflict that has no clear resolution.
Well, prior to Israel's campaigns agains HAMAS and Hezbollah, Iran was supplying those two groups (HAMAS in particular) with arms and intelligence to carry out attacks on Israel.
That's the way these things work. We sell weapons to Israel that kill Palestinians, and Iran gives weapons to terrorist organizations to fight against Israelis.
Yep.
It's a bit late for that now.
I was just addressing your claim that Iran had not lobbed missiles at Israel before.
So you have clinically stated and laid out the reasons why Israel and America must stop Iran from achieving its goals of domination in the Middle East.
HUH?
Is that the figure published by the Hamas Times because no other Western journalist is permitted to report otherwise?
I'm simply saying that the current strikes that are causing major damage to Israel are the result of Iran's retaliation. Nothing more, nothing less. It would not have likely happened if Israel had not struck first.
Well, that assumes Iran would be able to achieve that, which it cannot and was not able to prior to October 7th either. Now if you share the current president's view of the US staying out of foreign entanglements, then the view you just shared doesn't make sense, since it would require many of the actions that have led to an unstable Middle East. The US just isn't good at policy in the region, and the facts bear that out. Iran was never going to achieve dominion in the Middle East on the path it was on with funding proxies.
Iran is not in a position to annihilate Israel nor has it ever been, that is just a ridiculous position to take. Israel is a nuclear power and is backed by most of the world's nuclear powers, so there's no end game for Iran even if it acquired nuclear weapons.
Again, Iran's efforts have not yielded anything close to what you're claiming, it's just fantasy. Actually, quite the opposite was happening since the shift in power has been moving more towards an Israeli/Saudi led sphere of influence. The governments of the region have been moving towards establishing relations with Israel because they see it as a regional power, and there would likely be more stability with that kind of coalition than with Iran. The problem those governments have is their populations are less keen on it because they sympathize with the plight of the Palestinians, which is why the Oct 7th attacks shifted the progress of the alignment I referenced.
Why aren't western reporters in Gaza?
