Should the US become involved in helping protesters in Iran?

[Ihatetomatoes]

The situation is awful there now. Should the US become involved?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/articles/cm2jek15m8no.amp

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.

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.

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

Panama

Grenada

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

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?

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.

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.

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

Japan

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.

Germany

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.

Absolutely

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.

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

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.

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.

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"

This, a million times over.

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?

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.

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

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

Not sure that’s “very popular”?

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