Send me bad puns. Good puns welcome too.
He’d have to get the legislation passed this year, before midterms shift the legislature to a Democrat majority.
Or launch a coup. That’s also a thing that can happen. Why do you think he’s filling the military with his cronies and purging minorities?
As if Mango Mussolini is going to let his power go without a fight.
It’s probably simpler than that: anti-Zionism is very common in Italy and this is a cheap way for Meloni to get popular support.
The course of Israeli history was essentially unaffected by Holocaust survivors, so his only mistake relevant here was not dying sooner.
But on the other hand the petrodollar dies, which isn’t exactly good for US global influence.
K? Are we supposed to look up to previous US presidents as authorities on international law?
I can’t find anything about her calling herself a socialist, but she’s definitely to the left of most European politicians. Of course she’s working from a less development and more rightwing starting point so her policies seem like common sense to Europeans, but equating her with folks like the SPD based on that would be wrong. You don’t really get this kind of anti-neoliberal, overt social democracy from mainstream European parties anymore.
De-nazification doesn’t mean “kill all Nazis;” it means “make people stop being Nazis.” If you have a cheap and efficient method for that, I’m all ears.
Are those people actually making trouble for Trump and co or are we talking glorified parades here?
Too busy jacking off to the image of dead brown kids and oil. And I’m not only talking about Republicans.
They have rejected monitoring. Rejected negotiating. Rejected reasonable terms that led to sanctions at multiple points.
What? Have you never heard of JCPOA?
Silencing dissent is logical but not creating martyrs in a culture that idolises them.
Authoritarianism is a balancing act between not creating martyrs and making dissent dangerous. You can’t do one without the other, so while the Iranian regime might (or might not) be acting suboptimally the concern is still its own survival.
Clamping down on women for wearing what they choose with violence is not logical.
It gets points with their base of support, but also every regime anywhere does irrational things. The question is how much, so even if this was irrational (which again isn’t guaranteed) it doesn’t contradict with the wider point.
In the case of ideology overriding logic, that could lead to use against Israel.
[Citation needed]. Everything we have from the regime, both statements and actions, states otherwise. Iran can clearly deal significant damage to Israel using its missiles and drones, yet it only does so when threatened. Why would nukes be any different?
Their support of multiple factions in multiple neighbouring countries targeting than working constructively is also illogical and inflammatory
Iran is in direct competition with its Arab neighbors and Israel for regional supremacy; conflict between these camps is basically inevitable, especially with the Arab side being pro-America and Israel. Besides, their neighbors won’t trade with them with Western sanctions in place, making this a moot point. Their support for these militias improves their image domestically and regionally (factions like Hamas and the Houthis are very popular in the Middle East), gives them regional power (Iraq and Lebanon being obvious examples, but also Syria when Assad was around), makes local US presence costly and allows them to open up new fronts against Israel basically on demand. Tf you mean illogical, it’s downright genius (and very often evil, but that’s not what we’re talking about). Your position seems to hinge on the assumption that conflict is illogical, but there is such a thing as rational conflict. It’s not like Iran hasn’t tried to improve relations with its neighbors; it just does so on its own terms rather than America’s. TL;DR: Your point is analogous to asking why Ukraine doesn’t pursue better relations with Belarus.
True, but tbf they do have a lot of Ws. They also have a lot of Ls, but that’s not the subject of this conversation.
I hate to defend Iran, but the Iranian regime is in fact very rational. This is easily apparent when you strip away the religious aspect and look at what they actually do. In all direct confrontations with Israel or the US (at least during Khamenei’s rule, I’m not so sure about Khomeini), Iran has responded with measured actions aimed at de-escalation while saving face domestically and internationally and discouraging further aggression. Your image of Iran seems to be built on Western propaganda more than reality (again, I am not saying this to defend the Iranian regime).
Otherwise there would have been an end to sanctions years ago.
Uh… the sanctions are for daring to control their resources contrary to Western capitalist interests. Iran could be the most secular, most democratic country in the world and Western countries would still find a reason to sanction it. Besides, remember JCPOA? It was the US (and by extension the West) that reneged on that deal. Hell, remember the reason the Islamic Republic exists in the first place? Iran, quite rationally, wants to be an independent regional power not subordinate to anybody’s interests (and, again quite rationally, especially not Western interests). This directly contradicts the Western (especially US) demand that all Middle Eastern states be subordinate to their interests and pro-Israel. There can be no reconciliation between these positions (yet Iran tried anyway, see: JCPOA), so securing its position by force is the only realistic prospect, and frankly you can’t argue with results.
And an end to murdering dissidents and protestors.
Here you seem to be conflating rationality with morality. The Iranian regime is evil as fuck, but it’s rationally evil. Murdering challengers to one’s power is very rational from the perspective of a regime primarily concerned with its own survival. See also: the CCP.
The world is safer with less nukes.
The world is safer with no nukes and infinitely unsafe with infinite nukes. It’s appealing to extrapolate from this that less nukes -> more safety, but that’s an unjustified leap of logic. For example take the case of one nuclear state vs two nuclear states. If there’s only one it can force its will on other states, but if there are two they can keep each other in check and drastically reduce the possibility of nukes actually flying.
What. The. Fuck? Libya under Gaddafi didn’t have fucking slave markets you can’t be fucking serious. Also foreign countries dropping bombs isn’t a “revolution” anymore than Soviet-backed regimes in Eastern Europe were revolutionary.
Are you not capable of learning from history? Again, you could’ve said the same thing about Libya. Does Libya in 2026 look like a thriving democracy to you? Then why do you want to do the same thing in Iran?
The solution with the least harm would be for the USA and other NATO allies to help the Iranians overthrow the despots and cut ties with China.
Only if you don’t take into account harm for Iranians in your idea of “harm.” What you’re describing is basically what happened in Libya.
Tbf the US never had that much power, soft or otherwise, over China. The US is (very fortunately) hemorrhaging soft power, but even if they weren’t China would be jumping at this opportunity.
It’s not quite that simple. This is closer to a more reasonable version of the Houthi blockade; there are more criteria than just which country’s flag is flying.
Source?
He’s personally fired few people (who were however all top brass members), but his admin also banned trans people from the military and imposed facial hair standards meant to harass black people into leaving.
Uh… any evidence Bush even wanted to pull such a stunt?
And deal with a revolution/civil war that they might actually lose? Consolidating power under the pretense of democracy is the only logical play here. And besides, the people who want this to happen aren’t “secret” in any sense of the world; they’re tech oligarchs like Musk and Thiel and other billionaires. They’re also, you know, the almost 1/3 of the population that will back Trump in whatever he does. MAGA meets all the conditions necessary for a fascist overthrow of democracy, and their ostensible opposition barely even cares.