Oddbean

Defense ... what is it? If someone swings a sword at you, and you raise your shield, that is defense. If someone launches a drone at you and you shoot it down, that is defense. If you bomb somebody's country after they've attacked yours, that is NOT defense. That is retaliation. The propaganda misuse of the term "defense" is totally out of hand. Defense is not synonymous with retaliation. "The best defense is a good offense" is a witty phrase, but a witty phrase does not redefine the term "defense". The trouble this has caused is now very real and very immense. When the US says it will defend Israel, I personally believe it will only defend, that they intend to say "we will intercept attacks on Israel, but we won't attack Iran". But they didn't say that. The language is so unclear now that they MIGHT intend to "defend" Israel by bombing Iran. Iran doesn't know what they mean. Iran has to assume that the US intends to attack it. And all of this security nightmare just because some asshole thought it would make good propaganda to erode the meaning of the term "defend". 🙏

The opposite of defense is offense, not retaliation. If you are attacked with missiles, and you respond by destroying the missile batteries so you can’t be attacked any longer, that’s a just use of force.

There are no just uses of force. From a moralistic perspective, all force, even defensive, is unjust. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't use force. In fact, we should use force much more than we do.

Jesus was not the pacifist portrayed by liberal churches (those embracing worldly values). He understood that most battles are fought in a different realm than the physical. John 2:15 So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple courts, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables.

We (the US) hate Iran because Israel hates Iran, and Israel controls us. I'm pretty sure that's all. The Iranian theocracy is oppressive to human rights. But that doesn't mean military action against Iran is gonna fix that... in fact it will probably make it worse. There are oppressive governments everywhere that we don't hate... so I don't believe for a second it has anything to do with their oppressive theocracy. in 1906 or so, D'Arcy from Britain bought an oil prospecting concession from a corrupt Iranian government, struck oil, then the UK government nationalized the Anglo-Persian Oil Company (APOC) and changed over all their military ships to oil (from coal) making Iranian oil a strategic asset. But the Iranians became bitter that England got so wealthy from their resource, and they were tied down to a contract that was a really bad deal for them. Anyhow, that got much worse after Russia and England went to war with Iran in the 1930s. Many Iranians felt they had forefit their property rights by going to war with Iran, and so in 1950 when Mosaddegh became P.M. and he nationalized the oil refinery and kicked out the Brits, the people of Iran loved him. He was on the cover of Time Magazine. The Brits were furious and wanted military action, but Truman wouldn't help them. In 1953 when Eisenhower became US president, he was willing to help the Brits and they overthrew the only democratic government Iran ever had (the Brits lied to the Americans, telling them they needed to do this to protect against Socialism). From 1953 to 1979, the US and Iran were allies, under the Authoritarian rule of the Shaw. The US started their nuclear program. The US used Iran as a base from which to project power. Almost a million Americans moved to or visited Iran during that period, and Iranians moved to and studied in America. But there was a lot of hatred of America for their coup, and of the Shaw for his human rights abuses, and how their democracy was crushed and the people had no power anymore and were stuck under this authoritarian dictator propped up by America. And people became fearful and paranoid about America and the CIA and they eventually overthrew the government (this is called the Islamic Revolution of 1979) and put in an Islamic regime which IMHO they felt was strong enough to fight off America. They were very anti-free-speech, for example, because free speech was how the CIA tricked everybody during the coup. Anybody who might be a secret agent of America was arrested, organisations with non-standard opinions were supressed in fear that America was going to coup them again. And Iran became very repressive and authoritarian as an over-reaction to having been coup-ed. Iranians loved the United States until 1953. Then they hated it. They all remember why. Iran sees itself as a regional hegemon. They feel it is their responsibility to maintain peace and security in the surrounding area. They see Israel as the cause of all the violence in the area, and so they have worked to defeat Israel through indirect means (Hezbollah, Hamas, Houthis). Russia and China both affirm Iran's position as a regional hegemon working to establish peace and security for the area. Israel works to establish war, constantly provoking it's neighbors, assassinating in Lebanon, in Iran, committing a slow-motion genocide against Palestinians. And Israel paints Iran as the aggressor rather than the state that responds to Israeli aggression. Israel has claimed it will retaliate if Iran retaliates, and even has suggested it may preemtively retaliate. Even a child can see that is unjust. You don't get to justifiably retaliate against a retaliation, which is the punishment, which is the thing that should settle matters. And you certainly can't pre-emptively retaliate against a retaliation to your attack because that is just: Israel attacks + Isreal attacks again.... no justice in that. So Iran has a real serious challenge here. They have been trying to avoid war, but Israel is flat out not going to let them. Commentators have been saying Iran has to calibrate their attack, to make it strong enough to deter Israeli aggression, but not so strong as to cause a full scale war. But that presumes the impossible, because even a tiny attack will cause a full scale war, and even a huge attack will not deter Israel. So whether there is a massive war in the middle east is not up to Iran. They are forced into it. And Russia and afterwards China will participate in it... making it a good candidate for that label we keep tossing around: World War 3

Yeah, I don't think Iran is the big bad guy our government wants us to think... And that was an amazing summary, and thank you for taking the time to write it. Well, if Iran is getting a war no matter what they do, then I kinda think they should just attack with everything they have. Its existential. If it was me, I'd be mashing every red button I could find. But of course, there is a slim chance for peace, so maybe another option will open up. Maybe peace can last until the US goes to full bitcoin standard.

This is a terrible take, this is what Israel and the smooth brains running the US want. Better to be the bigger man and let Israel strike first. Let the world see that it was indeed Israel that provoked war. I don't think the younger gen people of the US have the same blind love of Israel that our Boomer parents seem to. I don't think Israel will risk all out war with Iran

Uh I did read the whole comment, what nuance am I missing in the Iran should be hitting the big red button? Iran doesn't have the social capital to survive being the aggressor. They need to look like the victim of they are to survive a war with Israel (USA)

I'm going to add (even though nobody called me on it) that the perspective that Iran is trying to maintain peace and security for the region is clearly not the common Western view. But if you listen to U.N. security council statements made by Iran, Russia, China and other non-Western aligned countries you can start to get a feel of how the other half of the world sees Iran very differently than the West does. There are very smart people in the West who believe Iranian leadership is trying to destroy Israel as punishment for it's past actions and would nuke it if it thought it could get away with it. And they might be right. I can't tell from where I'm sitting. But the idea that Israel is just defending itself is loony-tunes. And lesser intelligences that believe Islamists hate and want to kill all the Jews are just gullible suckers for hasbara propaganda (there are about 25k Jews living peacefullly in Iran).

100y ago today's "Defense Ministries" were called "War Ministries". It is an already old euphemism or newspeak When they want to be clear, they say "defensive" versus "offensive" operations. On the other hand, there is no sense on warning a potential enemy if they are or aren't going to be attacked. Still, vagueness is necessary but newspeak is not. A smart man can say nothing with correct language. They could say "we will take all measures we deem appropriate", or "all options are on the table", or "we will not allow this and that..." But using newspeak helps to increase confusion and dumbness. The less meaning, the better. More feelings, less facts. But there are other related linguistic traps too. "Proportionality" is not "kill as many as they killed", or "using proportionate means". It means to do the minimum needed to neutralize the threat. The minimum may be much larger than the previous offence.

I agree, but I think there is more to it. By purposefully being ambiguous they throw the ball on Iran's court and "say" are you prepared to potentially have a full war against the US? That is a deterrent and at the same time they can gauge Iran's strength and resolve. By forcing them to have a "weak" response, US benefits because Iranian allies' boldness decreases. "Israel can carry out attacks inside of Iran and they retaliate in such a weak manner... They can't protect themselves, can they even have our backs?" I think at least there is some strategy behind it.