Update
Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

Sen. Lindsey Graham Is Right! We can't say we won this war if an Ayatollah is left in charge.

Would President Truman have declared victory over Germany if we had killed Adolf Hitler and then accepted Hermann Göring as his successor?

The only thing worse than Donald Trump starting this war with Iran would be letting the regime survive to use a nuclear weapon in the future.
Top | New | Old
DeWayfarer · 61-69, M
We can't be the world police. And that's exactly what would be needed.

That is the reality of the situation.

What is needed is a effective world police. Not the excuses that currently exist.

Yet oh no, the powers that be, must be independent of each other. Let the lesser take the abuse of the greater.

This why we shouldn't be involved as a nation. We can't be the world police.

It's no longer a matter of a few nations. The world is a much bigger place, than it ever was, with 8.25 billion plus people.

And it's not getting any smaller.


You talk as if we can be the world police, when we obviously can't be. The population has more than quadrupled since WWII. Not just doubled.

In such population growth the masses become the problem as well as the casualties.

This is the problem of capitalism BTW. It requires independence. Not cooperation.
Strictmichael75 · 61-69, M
I don’t know about nuclear weapons, but certainly have stirred hatred among the population which will certainly have a whip lash effect
BohoBabe · M
Would President Truman have declared victory over Germany if we had killed Adolf Hitler and then accepted Hermann Göring as his successor?

That's basically what Trump did with Venezuela because it wasn't really about regime change, it was about causing chaos in Latin America. Whereas the war in Iran really is a regime change war for Israel.
beckyromero · 36-40, F
@BohoBabe
That's basically what Trump did with Venezuela because it wasn't really about regime change

With a caveat: there's absolutely no evidence that Venezuela has a nuclear weapons program, nor is fermenting international terrorism anywhere near the level that Iran has done for over 45 years.
BohoBabe · M
@beckyromero There's no evidence that Iran has nukes either. Iran is a much worse country than Venezuela, but neither were a threat to America.
This comment is hidden. Show Comment
It depends on whether regime change was the goal. If it wasn't, then you can win without it. Have they made up their mind yet as to what the war was for?
whowasthatmaskedman · 70-79, M
@NerdyPotato In a few weeks, they will settle on "It seemed like a good idea at the time."😷
EBSVC · 41-45, T
You realize the whole nukes thing is just to ensure they aren’t an equal player on the world stage.

It isn’t about safety, it’s about dominance.

Iran could have leveled the major cities around them whenever they wanted. For like…ever
EBSVC · 41-45, T
@Waveney Yea a lot of countries could blow each other up they just don’t want to. Iran included.

Because Israel wants them gone. Because Iran has been vocal for decades about opposing Israeli and US hegemony in the region. Because Iran wouldn’t bow down to them.

And we finally got a president stupid enough to fight Israel’s war for them.
Waveney · 41-45, M
@EBSVC 💯
EBSVC · 41-45, T
@Waveney I didn’t take you for a Zionist. It’s just the “oh god they can’t have nukes everyone will die” is just bullshit. I know you didn’t say that but it’s the narrative right now.

Because they could already blow everyone around them up if they wanted to.

What they can’t do without nukes is stand up to Usrael in a meaningful way and protect the region from Western control.

It’s why we don’t care about North Korea having them. They aren’t in the Middle East.
whowasthatmaskedman · 70-79, M
Ayatollyah So!😷 (Someone had to do it)
JPWhoo · 36-40, M
This was never a war we could win. The best plan is to cut our losses and get out now!
JPWhoo · 36-40, M
@beckyromero On the cheap?!? 20 years, 2,456 casualties, 20,700 injured, and $2.2 trillion isn’t enough? Bullshit, the problem was not that we didn’t stay long enough or invest enough in Afghanistan, it’s that we had no business being there in the first place, and I bet you more Americans agree with me than agree with you on that question.
beckyromero · 36-40, F
@JPWhoo
On the cheap?!? 20 years, 2,456 casualties, 20,700 injured, and $2.2 trillion isn’t enough?

Yes, on the cheap ... going all the war back to the Korean War.

Look back at the U.S. defense cuts after World War II - and what that resulted in.

Look back at the timid use of naval gun fire in Vietnam, when something like 80% of strategic targets were within range of our battleships, except that we had to recall two of our last four at the time from mothballs because we had scrapped all the others due to the worries about their cost. As a result, we often resorted to bombing, risking expensive aircraft and pilots' lives.

Look back at the Gulf War in 1991 - with Dick Cheney and Colin Powell getting all squeamish about the so-called "Highway of Death" - with the result of leaving Saddam Hussein in power.

Look back at the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and Paul Bremer's idiotic decision to disband the Iraqi Army rather than pay them. Resulting in a million armed men without pay. How'd that work out?

Look back at the initial response in Afghanistan after 9/11 - and Donald Rumsfeld's mistaken belief that the Afghan Northern Alliance could rout Al-Qaeda and cut off bin Laden's escape route to Pakistan.

Afghanistan, it’s that we had no business being there in the first place, and I bet you more Americans agree with me than agree with you on that question.

And as far as Afghanistan is concerned, there were plenty of Americans who wanted a "glow" of Afghanistan to be seen from the moon after what happened on 9/11. But I guess there are some people who would have had no problem leaving bin Laden alone.

But we could have saved that country from falling into the hands of the Taliban with just a fraction of the money we spent to help the Mujahideen rout the Soviets. That was done covertly. But once the Soviets were out, there was nothing stopping us to send in millions in HUMANITARIAN aid. Build some schools. Build some hospitals. Nothing except the Bush 41 administration and the Democrat Congress being so cheap they squeaked!

As Richard Nixon said:

The price for doing things half-assed is no less than for doing it completely; so we might as well do them properly.
CedricH · 22-25, M
@beckyromero How do you even write these posts this fast? It’s insane 😂
CedricH · 22-25, M
Even more so since the US-Israeli decapitation only made the last vestiges of this deplorable regime still more resentful and eager to hurt the United States at all cost. It needs to fall.
CedricH · 22-25, M
@chrisCA To change the regime?
chrisCA · M
@CedricH Yes
CedricH · 22-25, M
@chrisCA That’s my January 10 2026 Similar Worlds post on the subject

How to turn Iran‘s protests into an era defining event for the Middle East
Last year, Israeli and US operations jointly neutralized Iran‘s nuclear program, diminished the regime‘s ballistic missile capabilities, took out the highest echelons of the country’s military and scientific leadership and removed all air defense obstacles that might’ve impeded that operation or any future military strike in the near term.

At that point, I was arguing for a prolonged series of surgical strikes to not only break the regime‘s military back but to aim for the corrosion of its internal security organs, the IRGC, the morality police, the cyber police and the Basij, a paramilitary militia that specializes in the brutal suppression of protests. This in turn, was supposed to enable large scale protests to remove Ali Khamenei, his sinister retinue of fanatics as well as the theocratic system itself.

While Israel did take advantage of the 12 day war to hit internal security nodes in Tehran, these attacks fell short of any sustained and vigorous attempt to dislodge the Mullah regime from power. The strikes were clearly secondary to the goal of destroying Iran‘s nuclear program but Israel might’ve been willing to exploit that historic window of opportunity to topple the regime had the Trump administration not cut short the 12 day war by announcing a premature cessation of military operations.

Despite the disappointing reticence in the face of a monumental strategic opportunity, I felt reassured by my faith and confidence in the Iranian people who have demonstrated again and again that they’re willing to risk their remaining material possessions, their physical freedom and their own lives and well-being as well as the lives and well-being of their friends and family to challenge the farcical legitimacy of the theocratic Iranian state.

It is their courage and bravery, despite many other geopolitical and national security considerations, that can explain the imperative behind the use of military force to keep Iran as far away as possible from obtaining a nuclear umbrella.
With such an umbrella in place, Iran‘s domestic situation would‘ve been reduced to a mere black box for the rest of the world. The predicament of the Iranian people would thus resemble the plight of the North Koreans. Any degree of suppression could be employed by the regime to deal with the resistance from the Iranian people while pro-democratic forces outside Iran would be forced to watch Iran‘s final descend into a country-sized gulag in an utter state of paralysis.

Without a nuclear umbrella, missile or air defenses or strong proxies, like Hezbollah as a deterrent, however, Iran‘s skies are open to US and Israeli efforts, if either of those countries or both should decide to aid an Iranian revolution.

The case of Iran holds promise for a different approach than the traditional regime change strategy. Instead, regime collapse seems like a more viable option. Rather than invading Iran, occupying it and engineering a transition from within as a military administrator, the United States can destabilize the regime enough to effectuate its collapse. In the event of a regime collapse, the responsibility to govern and democratize Iran‘s political system would fall to the Iranian dissidents, 2.000 of whom have been executed just in the last two years to give Iran the national rebirth it so desperately needs and deserves.

Military strikes on internal security forces or installations, the targeted killing or capture of regime officials, or a no fly zone are not the only instruments of power that ought to be weaponized to erode the regime‘s grip on power. A cyber offensive could cut off communications between different loyalist forces inside Iran while digital assistance can ensure open communications among the protesters and with the outside world, in spite of an internet crackdown. Strike funds can be established to paralyze the Iranian economy even further, combined with additional sanctions and maritime interdiction efforts, akin to the quarantine around Venezuela, to stop Iran‘s oil exports, thereby denying the regime its crucial oil revenue.

A new dawn for the Middle East is now in reach for the United States, if this administration proves capable of learning from the failures of past administrations when they met pivotal Iranian protests in 2009 and 2023 with inexcusable inaction, if not
Zonuss · 46-50, M
Graham is corrupt.
He's a war hawk.
These people are lying to you.
And in the process making profits off these casualties as always. It's a mess. 🤔
beckyromero · 36-40, F
@Zonuss

Bottom line is we should have taken care of the North Korean nuclear threat DECADES ago. Now that Trump started this adventure with Iran, we have to see it through.
Zonuss · 46-50, M
@beckyromero This is not gonna end well. This is only the beginning.
beckyromero · 36-40, F
@Zonuss
This is not gonna end well.

If that's the case, it will be only because of the idiots in charge.

 
Post Comment