(C) Daily Kos
This story was originally published by Daily Kos and is unaltered.
. . . . . . . . . .



On Iran [1]

['This Content Is Not Subject To Review Daily Kos Staff Prior To Publication.']

Date: 2025-06-21

It seems that war is (or may be) inevitable. So, in some random order, heere are some thoughts.

Wars are generally not Zero-Sum games. Both sides can end up losing, and often do. The British were on the victorious side after WW2, but were essentially bankrupt, and lost all of their colonies shortly after. Unfortunately, some wars have worked out for the victors, and that is what keeps the premise of warfare alive. The most prominent of course being the colonial conquests, which made the victors very very rich. But in general, wars do not work out, even for the winners.

Both sides can end up losing, and often do. The British were on the victorious side after WW2, but were essentially bankrupt, and lost all of their colonies shortly after. Unfortunately, some wars have worked out for the victors, and that is what keeps the premise of warfare alive. The most prominent of course being the colonial conquests, which made the victors very very rich. But in general, wars do not work out, even for the winners. Nobody starts a long and protracted war on purpose . Every single instance of a protracted war of attrition has been started on a premise of a quick strike resulting in a grand victory. In the context of our own history, we can recall “Mission Accomplished”. History is replete with even more spectacular examples. The emergence of Islam, for instance, was tied to the last Great War of antiquity that exhausted the resources of the dominant powers of the region.

Every single instance of a protracted war of attrition has been started on a premise of a quick strike resulting in a grand victory. In the context of our own history, we can recall “Mission Accomplished”. History is replete with even more spectacular examples. The emergence of Islam, for instance, was tied to the last Great War of antiquity that exhausted the resources of the dominant powers of the region. Days that live in infamy are associated with those who start a war via surprise attacks while negotiations are underway. You remember FDR’s “day that will live in infamy speech”. Here is the fuller text:

Mr. Vice President, Mr. Speaker, Members of the Senate, and of the House of Representatives: Yesterday, December 7, 1941—a date which will live in infamy—the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan. The United States was at peace with that nation and, at the solicitation of Japan, was still in conversation with its Government and its Emperor looking toward the maintenance of peace in the Pacific .

Indeed, one hour after Japanese air squadrons had commenced bombing in the American island of Oahu, the Japanese Ambassador to the United States and his colleague delivered to the Secretary of State a formal reply to a recent American message. And while this reply stated that it seemed useless to continue the existing diplomatic negotiations, it contained no threat or hint of war or of armed attack.

That day lives in infamy not because we were the victims, but because there was an act of treachery that occurred on that day. Do you see any modern parallels?

No-one can predict the outcome. A war with Iran will reshape the Middle East (including the Arab states, Israel and the Levant), and the United States. We may eventually end up with a better world, or we may be worse off.

A war with Iran will reshape the Middle East (including the Arab states, Israel and the Levant), and the United States. We may eventually end up with a better world, or we may be worse off. Trump is not very clever. Does he know any of this? I doubt it. Will he be talked out of war by those who are lining his pockets, and probably understand the consequences better than he does. I doubt it? There are quite a few who stand to profit from this imminent war, and who also have his ear.

Does he know any of this? I doubt it. Will he be talked out of war by those who are lining his pockets, and probably understand the consequences better than he does. I doubt it? There are quite a few who stand to profit from this imminent war, and who also have his ear. It is very strange to see the anti-war movement within the Republican ranks. In 2002, the antiwar movement was exclusively on the far left. Most centrist dems, and all Republicans were for the war that Bush wanted. It is somewhat encouraging to see that some in the Republican ranks are also joining the antiwar movement. Equally, it is discouraging to see the silent encouragement from the Democratic Party leaders. Seems like most Centrist Dems have not learnt any lessons. There are exceptions, of course.. I was happy to see James Carville come out strongly against the war. But those are exceptions. Here is Van Jones… talking about how Iran isn't a normal country. Dude, we have a reality TV star with multiple convictions for President. We aren't exactly in any position to call other countries as “not normal”.

x Liberals aren’t even trying anymore to temper their hatred toward people from the Middle East. Here’s Van Jones talking about how “Iran isn’t a normal country” and therefore progressives should embrace the idea of bombing Iran.



pic.twitter.com/AVEdGlg1aL — kev joon (@never_oppressed) June 21, 2025

[END]
---
[1] Url: https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2025/6/21/2329329/-On-Iran?pm_campaign=front_page&pm_source=more_community&pm_medium=web

Published and (C) by Daily Kos
Content appears here under this condition or license: Site content may be used for any purpose without permission unless otherwise specified.

via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds:
gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/dailykos/