The U.S. and Israel are pushing for war with Iran—but why?

[EndtheMadnessNow]

The real motives behind the threats, sanctions, and escalations go deeper than "nuclear fears."

Here’s what’s really happening from the perspective of a Syrian living in Germany.

Iran learned a brutal lesson from its neighbors:

Iraq: Invaded.

Libya: Dismantled.

North Korea: Untouched (thanks to nukes).

The message? No deterrence = vulnerability. So why is the U.S. really demanding that Iran abandon its nuclear program?

Iran’s tough choice:

Surrender? The regime collapses.
Fight? The economy crashes.

With Iran’s currency in free fall, war becomes more likely by the day.

[Ninurta]

I personally think it's quite an imaginative stretch to claim that we haven't disassembled North Korea because they have nukes. They've only fairly recently gotten nukes,yet we didn't disassemble them in the 70 odd years since the Korean war during which they didn't have nukes. So, to me, that claim holds no water.

I would support a war against Iran before I would support meddling in the Russian Civil War in the Ukraine. We ain't got no dogs in that internal fight... but Iran, on the other hand, we could claim a beef against. I mean, the Iranians made Jimmy Carter eat shit, and eat shit but good. And they've been making the US eat shit ever since then, I would welcome a US president that stood up on his hind legs like a man,and said "lookit here, Iran. You'd best calm your silly asses down, or else we'll calm you down, because we've had just about enough of your bullshit."

As far as imperialism vs. stability in the Middle East goes, both sides are trying to create their own special versions of "stability" by projecting imperialism. On the part of Iran, they want the stability that an Iranian headed caliphate would bring to the Middle East - the elimination of both Israel and Saudi Arabia, and the abject subjugation of all the other nations under Iranian thumbs. It's no secret that there is no love lost between the Iranians and the Saudis. Iran has tried to take Mecca from the Sauds before, and got their asses handed to them.

The US just wants stability for the oil fields, and the best way to insure that is to make sure that everyone in the Middle East is not constantly plotting to cut everyone else's throat in the Middle East. The US also wants more or less friendly relations with the oil producers there, as far as they can have those. So, they MUST oppose Iran in that regard, because Iran has made no secret of it's hatred for anything not Shia-Islamic. An Iran controlled Middle east would present problems for foreign oil markets, especially Us oil markets.

So the way I see it, the US and Israel aren't after imperial domination of the middle east just for the sake of empire so much as they just don't want to always have to watch their backs and sleep with one eye open. Iran wants domination to project their own peculiar version of Islam throughout the Middle East, and from there throughout the world.

The "west" wants imperial stability for material resources, and Iran wants imperial stability in order to own more immaterial minds and souls. Both want world domination eventually, but both for very different reasons.

Islam's MO is for one tribe to kick a smaller tribes ass and incorporate them, then another, and another, and another, so on and so forth. As they assimilate each tribe, they are able to tackle larger and larger tribes, and then it spreads like a cancer. That's how Mohammed did it, that's how all the caliphs did it, and that is still how they are doing it today, as we see in Iran's activity.

So, this commentator appears to me to be pushing an agenda - an anti-US agenda, or an anti-Israel agenda, or maybe a more generic "anti-west" agenda, but an agenda nonetheless. that is, of course, to be expected in geopolitics. Everyone has an agenda, everyone pushes their agenda, and it is to be expected that everyone will root for their own "team" to win the agenda war.

That's just politics as usual. "Right" and "wrong" are solely in the eyes of the beholders, and might will eventually make right, as usually happens in politics. To borrow a phrase from the SAS, "Who dares, Wins". The winners will eventually be the sole determiners of what was "right", and what was "wrong", because as has been said, "history is written by the victors".

.

[SomeJackleg]

why? because their a bunch of ass backward camel and goat herders that don't want the masses to come out of the past and keep them bound up with religious twisted dogma so the iatola assahola's and crew can feed off the ignorant.

not that much different than all the other dick tators in the rest of the world be them in the " free " world or not.

[F2d5thCav]

@Ninurta

Yeah, personally I'm tired of the constant anti-US messaging, be it about Iran or whatever.

Bottom line is the Irani leadership is driven by an admixture of religion and tribalism.  Their 'vision' is not good for anyone save a handful of chosen acolytes.

Oh, the USA's approach is not angelic and frequently flawed ?  Yes, that is true.  But when one considers the alternatives ... Russia ... China ... radical Islam ... yeah, no, no thanks.  One good thing about the USA's take on issues is that it is not forever ... unlike the fatal embrace of certain systems.

I don't care if these agents (for that is what they are) want to push their agendas, I just wish the internet was able to provide these viewpoints along with cogent replies and analyses to whatever it is the agents are pushing.  If I have to take ideological poison, I would at least prefer to have a choice about whatever take it is that I eventually accept.

[Ninurta]

@Ninurta

Yeah, personally I'm tired of the constant anti-US messaging, be it about Iran or whatever.

Bottom line is the Irani leadership is driven by an admixture of religion and tribalism.  Their 'vision' is not good for anyone save a handful of chosen acolytes.

Oh, the USA's approach is not angelic and frequently flawed ?  Yes, that is true.  But when one considers the alternatives ... Russia ... China ... radical Islam ... yeah, no, no thanks.  One good thing about the USA's take on issues is that it is not forever ... unlike the fatal embrace of certain systems.

I don't care if these agents (for that is what they are) want to push their agendas, I just wish the internet was able to provide these viewpoints along with cogent replies and analyses to whatever it is the agents are pushing.  If I have to take ideological poison, I would at least prefer to have a choice about whatever take it is that I eventually accept.

I think a fair summary would be to say that both "sides" want stability in the Middle East, but that they have very different views of what "stability" means, and of whose empire should be running the show there - and neither really much cares what the little guys living there think of the situation, or who they would like to have running their show.

So we get to the point that we realize they are ALL bastards, but we would rather it be OUR bastards running it... and both sides feel that way, rooting for very different bastards, but bastards all the same in all cases.

The one thing no one ever asks is who the locals would like to have telling them what to do. You know, those fancy words like "autonomy" and "self determination".

..