I recall that neocons and imperialists also affected a touching concern for the suffering people of Afghanistan, Iraq, Bosnia, Libya and Syria, at least until they got the wars that they so hungered for. Then their humanitarian impulses suddenly up and died.
Strangely, their humanitarian drive also doesn't extend to the suffering people of Yemen, to Kurds in Syria, to Palestinians, or others suffering under our heels and those of our satraps.
Cruelty is the point. We do it because we can. Maybe I will live to see the day when those who have committed war crimes and crimes against humanity are prosecuted and sent off to some isolated prison never to have contact with normal humanity again. I think Wake Island would be the perfect place.
The war on Iran isn't just on Iran, it's on Armenia, China, EU, Libya, Russia, Syria, and Yemen (plus some others I won't recall until the coffee settles me). It's not going to end until enough countries sanction the US badly enough to blow up the USD as a reserve currency, and even before that can happen some brave nation, or group of nations will either have to run a huge trade deficit (and thus beggaring its workforce) or everyone has to switch to some sort of commodity backed currency - Gold won't do unless it's value gets inflated a few million % to match the economy) or even more impossible, everyone that counts ditches capitalism.
I am very skeptical of the idea that if the Islamic Republican regime were overthrown, its successor would be amenable to Bret Stephens' real goal of normalizing relations between Iran and Israel (unless it were a puppet regime that restored the Pahlavi Monarchy). I think it's also possible that the current regime will be able to placate the protests by ending the mandatory hijab law. I am sure that Iranian grievances with the regime run deeper than that law alone, but it is the catalyst for the current protests, so abolishing it may abate them while leaving the regime standing.
What I am absolutely certain about is that any regime that would replace the Islamic Republic would also want to have a nuclear weapon a screwdriver's turn away. The desire for Iran to have a nuclear weapon (or at least be able to get one immediately if it wanted to) is pretty much a universal point of Iranian nationalism. It is seen as a matter of the Iranian nation's prestige and status, and it is not a pet project of the Islamic Republic.
Ironically we might not have gotten to this point if we had just normalized relations with Iran after the JCPOA; Trump's decision to shred the deal and then assassinate Soulemani strengthened the hand of the hardliners.
I recall that neocons and imperialists also affected a touching concern for the suffering people of Afghanistan, Iraq, Bosnia, Libya and Syria, at least until they got the wars that they so hungered for. Then their humanitarian impulses suddenly up and died.
Strangely, their humanitarian drive also doesn't extend to the suffering people of Yemen, to Kurds in Syria, to Palestinians, or others suffering under our heels and those of our satraps.
As if Bret Stephens was supportive of the JCPOA negotiations until these demonstrations changed his mind…
Cruelty is the point. We do it because we can. Maybe I will live to see the day when those who have committed war crimes and crimes against humanity are prosecuted and sent off to some isolated prison never to have contact with normal humanity again. I think Wake Island would be the perfect place.
The war on Iran isn't just on Iran, it's on Armenia, China, EU, Libya, Russia, Syria, and Yemen (plus some others I won't recall until the coffee settles me). It's not going to end until enough countries sanction the US badly enough to blow up the USD as a reserve currency, and even before that can happen some brave nation, or group of nations will either have to run a huge trade deficit (and thus beggaring its workforce) or everyone has to switch to some sort of commodity backed currency - Gold won't do unless it's value gets inflated a few million % to match the economy) or even more impossible, everyone that counts ditches capitalism.
I am very skeptical of the idea that if the Islamic Republican regime were overthrown, its successor would be amenable to Bret Stephens' real goal of normalizing relations between Iran and Israel (unless it were a puppet regime that restored the Pahlavi Monarchy). I think it's also possible that the current regime will be able to placate the protests by ending the mandatory hijab law. I am sure that Iranian grievances with the regime run deeper than that law alone, but it is the catalyst for the current protests, so abolishing it may abate them while leaving the regime standing.
What I am absolutely certain about is that any regime that would replace the Islamic Republic would also want to have a nuclear weapon a screwdriver's turn away. The desire for Iran to have a nuclear weapon (or at least be able to get one immediately if it wanted to) is pretty much a universal point of Iranian nationalism. It is seen as a matter of the Iranian nation's prestige and status, and it is not a pet project of the Islamic Republic.
Ironically we might not have gotten to this point if we had just normalized relations with Iran after the JCPOA; Trump's decision to shred the deal and then assassinate Soulemani strengthened the hand of the hardliners.