Should the US become involved in helping protesters in Iran?

You seem to arguing with an invisible person because as far as I can see, no one on this thread is saying that the US could just step in anywhere in the world (including Iran) and make it all fine. We know it doesn't work like that.

Speaking for myself, I said on page 2 of this thread that my answer to the AIBU that the US should become involved is "I'm not sure - the US wading in could make things worse".

He specifically said, "If they start shooting, so will we." It's reasonable to assume he meant boots on the ground when he said that.

No of course not, but Iran isn't invading countries like the Nazis is it? They want a regime change which is fair enough but there are ways of doing it..

@Wintersgirl How do you think they should they be doing it?

Ok.

It’s likely because your links were to “US threats to intervene” which has been discussed in terms of bombing military sites.

All involved but not one individual country. It was not an example of “the USA bombing a country into stability”.

Out of interest, who can claim that then?

Where does the USSR stand, what with actively colluding with Hitler?

Perhaps it’s a clear win for the UK. Hurrah!

I'm on the fence about this. On the one hand, Trump actively encouraged the protests with the promise of help if things went south, which they rapidly did.

On the other hand, I'm not sure US forces, as they are under Trump's leadership, would make things better or worse. We should also consider why Trump offered support; he doesn't do anything that is not for his own personal benefit, and was he legally able to offer that support?

I think a compromise of providing support from afar, such as communications technology, military intelligence, and medical supplies, is probably the best way to go.

That was 73 years ago - different times.

This time it is the will of the people.

That wasn’t the US. That was a global allied effort (which the US was late too.)

The US cannot claim that one.

His approval rating is currently 39% (against 56% disapprove).

Not sure that’s “very popular”?

https://www.economist.com/interactive/trump-approval-tracker

What do you want to happen? Should anyone help, or not even if the outcome is violent repression

I think those shows Western powers are generally fine with despots and oppressive regimes as long as they are pro-West.

I am not necessarily against US support but would feel more comfortable if their foreign interventions had a better track record of actually improving things.

It’s a nice idea but generally US military intervention leads to worse outcomes. I am sure the protestors desire support but maybe not bombings?

This, a million times over.

So to take an emotion based left wing style of counter argument:

"So you are happy then to see 500 innocent protesters, mostly women, being killed in Iran"

Maybe the US (and UK) have done quite enough damage in Iran since they deposed the democratically elected government in favour of the Shahs puppet regime that led to the revolution in 1979.

Letting someone called Kermit run the operation should have been a warning sign.

The US military has to be careful on how it intervenes. The US is not that popular amongst ordinary Iranians, so blowing stuff up may simply produce support for the existing regime.

By all means provide the protesters with satellite internet connection, communications and military intelligence.

But in this case I think dropping expensive high explosives will be counterproductive.

Re WW2 the US may like to think it was all down to them but there were quite a few other countries involved as well

There were indeed, @countrygirl99, but most of them would have been stuffed without American money and military provision

Still would be, come to that, and awful though he can be one thing Trump's very popular for at home is making it so clear others will have to pay more

Effects of US bombing on Laos and Cambodia were terrible. They still have mines.

I don't think anyone on this board is claiming that bombing is happy or that there haven't been plenty of terrible failures of intervention.

But if one wants to argue against US intervention on the basis that it has never stabilised a country, one should first check if that's true.

Else just oppose US intervention or some other grounds, or even reconsider.

Absolutely

You asked the question. Now you’re having to wriggle because you don’t like the answer.

So far as the Vietnamese boat people are concerned, they were fleeing communist oppression. I recall the British (and other) left at the time accusing them of being saboteurs and fascists.

Incredibly brave. It’s what happens though when civilian populations stand up to men with guns who are used to controlling them with violence. They do the only thing they know how.