Should the US become involved in helping protesters in Iran?

We know that.

Is Afghanistan a flourishing democracy today ?

We saw what happened with Afghanistan. The original thing was to get Bin Laden. Then mission creep, then set up new Government etc.

And Bin Laden was actually in Pakistan. Bush ended up hand waving the original mission away. " Who cares about where Bin Laden is ?" is what he said.

I just remembered. Trump has said he wants Bagram Air base. So lets add that to his wish list of wars.

Trump suggests U.S. troops could return to Afghan base over China concerns : NPR

Your concern about US bombing Iran is that Russia won't be bombing them too?

Plenty of failures of intervention. You seemed unaware of any case where US bombing had led to stability. Take Japan if you like, probably the most famous example of bombing in all of history. Virtually all of it was US led. No question that Japan is now stable.

Yes, there seems no easy correlation between how harsh the bombing was, the success of stabilisation, and the people's attitudes later.

Maybe even a positive correlation between intensity and support later (Japan, Germany, Vietnam). I'd guess it's different reasons though: Japan and Germany needed to know they had lost and the regime had failed. Vietnam didn't end like that, but it did have communism afterwards which didn't go well, followed by marketisation/Westernisation which brought a lot of wealth.

The worst outcomes seem to be either brutal regimes or the endless conflicts where noone ever wins or loses and grievances continue forever.

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.
How long did it take Vietnam to stabilise after the US were beaten? How many people fled in small boats in the following years. What was the impact of the US action in Vietnam on Laos and Cambodia?

Nevertheless, USA meddling rarely has the result most people would hope for.

Grenada

Panama

Against the Iranian mullahs, Genghis Khan would have the moral high ground.

The Mujahideen (Taliban) who the US sponsored in the 80's against Soviet forces who were trying to support the existing Afghani government. Charlie Wilson's War was based on truth, where the CIA (Operation Cyclone), funded the Mujahideen through Pakistani intelligence sources.

Also, eyes on Saudi/Libya/Lebanon/Syria, etc. The Middle East is never simple.

Iraq is, of course, the I in 'Brics'.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/1/11/brics-wargames-why-they-matter-why-india-opted-out

Trump isn't intervening anywhere out of fondness or compassion.

Vietnam is stable and surprisingly pro-US too. I don’t say the Vietnam War was a good thing. But it’s very clear that a few decades on, even after that appalling conflict, the Vietnamese people think well of the US but hate China.

I put it down to the extraordinary entrepreneurialism and self-sufficiency of the Vietnamese.

I don’t think any country should be funding any terrorist groups. I think it’s very simplistic to suppose that the USA, who funded, for example, the right-wing Contras in Nicaragua and the anti-Soviet Mujahideen in Afghanistan (which morphed into al-Qaeda), can just step in anywhere in the world and make it all fine! It doesn’t work like that, as history should have taught us. They do not have the moral high ground and any action they take will be self-serving.

I am a leftie. And I would like to see the Iranian regime gone. I am also far from being in favour of Communist regimes.

Instead of saying leftie, why not call them Tankies. Because that's what they are.

The left is a massive umbrella, from full on Marxists to literarily the center.

Famously, Germany and Japan. That brought stability to Western Europe for, broadly speaking, the whole of the 20th century.

Backstopped by Nato (which is, in essence, a threat that the US will bomb you) which has, largely successfully, deterred the USSR and Russia.

More recently, Kosovo and Bosnia, ending ethnic cleansing and leaving statues, streets and babies across the region named for Clinton and Blair. Granada and Panama are more controversial but are stable.

In Korea the US only really managed to maintain its power in the south of the peninsula. You are welcome to your own view on whether the north or south is more stable and which brand of stability you would prefer.

Plenty of failures of intervention too. But anyone unaware of WWII should first wonder if they are fully equipped yet to judge this complex question.

It would be marvellous if the Iranians overthrow such a brutal, oppressive regime but I do believe that western interference won't help - change truly does have to come from within. As an aside, if that were to happen what on earth will the lefties do - support the dismantling of an authoritarian state and champion the liberty of Iranian people or protest against colonialist powers sticking their oar in and meddling in middle eastern matters?

Can anyone think of a country that the US have bombed into stability?

It's an easy argument that this is putting the US first, by strengthening their power position in the world, specifically wrt Russia/China. Also by securing access to energy and resources. I'm not saying that I agree with that position, necessarily, but it is plausible.

You do have to be careful with Twitter as a source though. By using Starlink, it is going to be very one sided messaging. It's not as if the pro regime folk will be using Starlink to post their "death to America" chants to twitter. And of course, when Iranian TV show the "death to America" chants on state TV, that is propaganda. But there will be people chanting it for real.

And it's the same with Starlink. It's banned in the country I live. I doubt anyone is privately smuggling then in, not in numbers anyway. So the Starlink joy could equally be staged, although of course it happens.

The problem is really how to decide the numbers on each side.

It's not very relevant if Israel once funded Hamas - they have discovered to their cost that this was a mistake. My point is that no country should be funding Hamas or Hezbollah or the Houthis.

Do you agree that Iran should be stopped from their current practice of funding these terrorist groups?

I didn’t bring Hamas into the conversation. I’m just pointing out that every country in the world has at some time or another linked arms with dubious regimes and organisations for their own dubious ends. 🙄

I thought Trump was all about “America First” - this would be a great moment to focus on that.

Not this again 🙄

You do know that Israel once funded Hamas? To drive a wedge between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority - divide and rule. Every country in the world, even the UK, is prepared to cosy up to monsters, if it suits them at the time. The USA has propped up many vile dictatorships because it served its own base interests. Don’t look to them for moral leadership.

They don't bomb where protesters are ...

They wouldn't need to, @Ihatetomatoes
There's nothing to stop the regime forcing a few protesters into what would be target areas, uploading images of "innocents murdered by the US" and then waiting for the predictable howls of outrage

As with Afghanistan and so many others, real change has to come from within, and I see no long term benefit from interfering