Iranian War Is Not The Same As Iraq

It’s been verified by the Guarduan. The school was hit by a US or Israeli strike. The reason it’s hard to tell which immediately is because Israel uses US weapons/missiles.
https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2026/mar/02/civilian-deaths-in-iran-pass-200-amid-fear-of-bombs-and-regime-clampdown

No normal person would imagine the US forces would deliberately target a school in Iran. Nothing to be gained but bad publicity.

They seem to be the ones largely getting the bad publicity for it anyway despite none of us actually knowing how that school came to be bombed.

I feel like people are using children's deaths for political advantage which is pretty sick. Whether the US, Israel or Iran are responsible, I wouldn't go so far as to suggest that any of them would have done it on purpose.

No normal person would imagine the US forces would deliberately target a school in Iran. Nothing to be gained but bad publicity.

They seem to be the ones largely getting the bad publicity for it anyway despite none of us actually knowing how that school came to be bombed.

I feel like people are using children's deaths for political advantage which is pretty sick. Whether the US, Israel or Iran are responsible, I wouldn't go so far as to suggest that any of them would have done it on purpose.

would not deliberately target
That word deliberately is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that sentence....

which seems obvious but apparently isn't to some people.
Agree it seems obvious but I think we disagree on what seems obvious

As Bringmeout is trying to emphasise- Iran is not the same as Afghanistan, or Iraq. They are a massive, educated country with a long long history and structured civilisation that far predates Islam. They have many ethnic groups and are not Arabs, or affiliated to the Arab world.
Id be extremely surprised if, after all they have been through, any fundamentalist Muslim regime would be able to remain or take over.
And at the end of the day, the people have made it extremely clear that they want change, aside from the obvious benefits to the West of cutting off the head that feeds terror cells.
War is awful, but bloody revolution is happening anyway, in the streets of Iran. In order to try and build that into something positive for the people, first the Islamic Regime must be destroyed.

There are also the Kurds in the west, and the Ballochistan separatists in the east. The latter overlap with Pakistan. It was the ballochistans who done a big bombing in Iran last year I think. And they do attacks in Pakistan too, especially against Chinese belt and road stuff.

While I agree in theory. If they topple the regime, what are they going to replace it with? Isis or the Whatevers of the Levant, like Irak or Syria? Ask the Kurds or the Yahzidis how that went. Where are all these democrats, who will build this paragon of democracy in Iran coming from? Another terror story is Afganistan. Western intervention has never brought anything good to the area. I am very sceptical.

Monarchists, MEK, IRGC, Regular army, Hardline Islamists, followers of Khomenei who would want his descendents to take power, there are also moderates and reformers. Any of which or others who may want to seize power. Who do you think will end up in charge?

It will depend who can garner the most support. The IRGC are probably best armed and resourced if they survive the war. And it's possible the US will arm the monarchists. Or could even be the continuation of the current regime if the IRGC stays loyal. Some of the factions are illegal under the current regime so we won't know until it happens how much support they actually have. Could even be something out of left field that no one sees coming currently

Not without a viable alternative, sadly no. I really wish I believed it would. But the supporters of the current regime will not go away (they have too much to lose), and as with most dictatorships there is no strong leader with widespread support to step into the vacuum. It's not exactly the same as Iraq but there are certainly similarities - including the risk of the rise (or strengthening) of terrorist groups and civil war. The US have just cut the head off the Hydra.

Monarchists, MEK, IRGC, Regular army, Hardline Islamists, followers of Khomenei who would want his descendents to take power, there are also moderates and reformers. Any of which or others who may want to seize power. Who do you think will end up in charge?

It will depend who can garner the most support. The IRGC are probably best armed and resourced if they survive the war. And it's possible the US will arm the monarchists. Or could even be the continuation of the current regime if the IRGC stays loyal. Some of the factions are illegal under the current regime so we won't know until it happens how much support they actually have. Could even be something out of left field that no one sees coming currently

Not without a viable alternative, sadly no. I really wish I believed it would. But the supporters of the current regime will not go away (they have too much to lose), and as with most dictatorships there is no strong leader with widespread support to step into the vacuum. It's not exactly the same as Iraq but there are certainly similarities - including the risk of the rise (or strengthening) of terrorist groups and civil war. The US have just cut the head off the Hydra.

I agree. In any case nobody could just go in without preparation or getting aircraft carriers and pilots etc near enough to begin a war. The naivety of some people beggars belief.

So the fall of a regime which funded and trained hezbollah, Hamas, Houthis, Iraqi militia, assad (500’000 deaths there alone) is involved in the drugs trade (captagon manufactured in syria flooded arab markets, venuzuela was used as a drugs, money laundering and drone manufacturing hub, not to mention that hezbollah are heavily involved in the drugs trade) sold drones to russians (something like 50’000 shaheed drones have been used in Ukraine) will not lead to more peace? Seriously?

This is what I meant by people not really understanding the Iranian web of influence.

The most likely outcome for Iran is a power vacuum followed by a civil war to establish the next dictator. The ex-shah has some US support and some support in Iran, but there are other powerful factions as well. It's not looking good for the ordinary people.

Which powerful factions?

The most likely outcome for Iran is a power vacuum followed by a civil war to establish the next dictator. The ex-shah has some US support and some support in Iran, but there are other powerful factions as well. It's not looking good for the ordinary people.

We're not - we just don't think that this will help either promote peace in the region or globally, or a better life for the Iranian people. And lets not forfet the current regime was born out of Western (mostly US) intervention. If the US had not helped bring down the democratically elected, secular Mossadegh government and supported the repressive Shah's regime (in order to secure oil) it's unlikely there would have been the 1979 revolution that brought this appalling and dangerous regime to power. I'm sure you'll say that's all ancient history and not relevant, but surely if we need yet another reminder of the long-term negative impacts of gung-ho Western intervention in the Middle East on both its people and world peace we need to acknowledge this.

Their motto is death to america, death to israel. And you want Israel and America to wait until they literally have a nuke before trying to remove them? This is after they have consistently attacked and destabilised with the use of proxies throughout the middle east. It’s not just that they may be a threat in the future they are a threat now, they have been defacto at war with Israel and the USA for decades, there is no clear reason why they should be allowed to continue with that war un-opposed. Make it make sense.

Also there are bunch of legally sound justifications for intervention, Lord Wolfson has outlined the legal justifications. So the use of “illegal” here is doing a lot of heavy lifting. But people regularly claim stuff is illegal if they don’t like it.

Also if international law only protects authoritarians, tyrants and terrorists then it’s time to fucking ignore it don’t you think.

I look forward to the broadcasts of Iranians dancing in the streets, women with their hair out and people released from the dungeons in Iran. Trump owns the deaths of protesters who went out on bis encouragement but I don’t understand how you can say “if you really cared you would have acted earlier, best not to do anything now though because actually I don’t really care about Iranians either”.

What do you think would lead to a better life for the Iranian people? They’ve been protesting for years, they rose up once again couple of months ago and were brutally attacked by their own regime.
Tens of thousands killed within days.
What do you think they could realistically do without outside help?

Their motto is death to america, death to israel. And you want Israel and America to wait until they literally have a nuke before trying to remove them? This is after they have consistently attacked and destabilised with the use of proxies throughout the middle east. It’s not just that they may be a threat in the future they are a threat now, they have been defacto at war with Israel and the USA for decades, there is no clear reason why they should be allowed to continue with that war un-opposed. Make it make sense.

Also there are bunch of legally sound justifications for intervention, Lord Wolfson has outlined the legal justifications. So the use of “illegal” here is doing a lot of heavy lifting. But people regularly claim stuff is illegal if they don’t like it.

Also if international law only protects authoritarians, tyrants and terrorists then it’s time to fucking ignore it don’t you think.

I look forward to the broadcasts of Iranians dancing in the streets, women with their hair out and people released from the dungeons in Iran. Trump owns the deaths of protesters who went out on bis encouragement but I don’t understand how you can say “if you really cared you would have acted earlier, best not to do anything now though because actually I don’t really care about Iranians either”.