upvote
> Working towards war with Iran has been bipartisan US policy for decades now

Obama signed the Iran nuclear deal in July 2015 [1].

Biden didn't put any policy focus on Iran, in part becase, with the benefit of hindsight, it's difficult to distill any policy focus from that Presidency following Covid. But he also didn't ratchet up pressure in any material way [2]. (And to be clear, I'm not saying that's good.)

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Comprehensive_Plan_of_Ac...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93United_States_rel...

reply
Obama is the one outlier here. As far as I'm aware, all other presidents since '79 saw this as inevitable if not desirable.
reply
> all other presidents since '79 saw this as inevitable if not desirable

I think it's helpful to distinguish Cold War-era Presidents from the others, but that obviously limits the sample.

reply
That only cuts Carter and Reagan, and I have a hard time ignoring Carter given all the Iran issues he had to deal with.
reply
Islamic lunatic ayatollahs, who've shown a willingness to massacre their own people, with nukes?

Can't imagine why that would be a bad thing ...

I don't much understand that about this thread. Yes Trump bad. Yes, US should not get into another war (although in here, arguably this may avoid war, and yes, that's been said before)

But when it comes to the ayatollahs at the business end of the missiles: defending them? I mean, I understand socialists brought them to power, but still: for these particular ayatollahs, having their insides spread over a few football fields ... can't happen to a more deserving bunch.

reply
AFAIK the only country that dropped a nuke on their own soil (that luckily didn't explode) is the USA.
reply
If Iran is unhappy with their government, they can deal with it. It is not a US problem in the slightest. Going to war with another country puts Americans at risk.
reply
> if Iran is unhappy with their government, they can deal with it. It is not a US problem

If Tehran contented itself with oppressing its own, it probably wouldn't garner too much attention. The problem is its regional proxies constantly causing a mess. It lacks anyone willing to come to its aid right now in large part because of that foreign policy.

reply
Small not, but the US hasn't declared war. That requires an act of congress, and congress has continued to neutered itself more and more for decades.
reply
Not sure how you can say that considering that he did it without Congressional approval? It’s literally all him.
reply
Congress hasn't publicly supported the attack. That is an extremely important step, and required for any operation lasting more than 30 days if I'm not mistaken, but it doesn't mean a majority of Congress hasn't already made clear they do support this.
reply
Even some of the most "left" Dems, like Elizabeth Warren, were giving Trump an emphatic standing ovation as he talked about Iran in the SotU [0].

That was literally days after Warren posted on social media about "not sending our military into another endless war in the Middle East" [1]. Look at the comments on the post - they all believe her. It's really very silly.

0 - https://x.com/i/trending/2026793972086222987

1 - https://www.facebook.com/ElizabethWarren/posts/pfbid0BCLJaUv...

reply
Yup. The Jeffries and Schumer have also signaled not that they don't support war with Iran, but they don't like being left out of the loop on planning.

This is an unfortunately a bipartisan and well supported action by congress. Dems seem to mostly just be mad about procedure rather than the results. Very similar to how they protested the Venezuela actions.

reply
You gotta be kidding
reply
He's right though. He's calling out that this is policy, not just Trump.

Still however pulls the trigger commits the crime.

reply
Yes both parties are war mongers but I don't think that lets Trump off the hook even a little. This wasn't necessary or inevitable. Trump's not even really trying to justify it.
reply