To ask Trump supporters if they support the attack on Iran or if they feel Trump has wrongly gone back on his 'no more foreign wars' promise?

[Carla786]

YABU = Yes, I support the attack on Iran
YANBU = No,he wrongly went back on his 'no more foreign wars' promise

Personally, I can see both sides. I don't personally support Trump, but I can see why some might support the attack. Khameini and is regime are certainly loathsome and Iranians and the rest of us would be much better off without them. They certainly pose danger to Israel, US etc too.

Otoh, is there a credible political opposition who could take over? The prince could, but only as a figurehead. The Iraq war, the Libya invasion and the Afghanistan war did not end very well- how do we know this one will end any better?

My understanding was that quite a few Trump supporters saw him as a welcome change from the neocons of the Bush era who led the US into ME wars. I could be wrong about this though.

Interested to hear replies!

Not avoiding bombs

They need help from within the country, not from a foreign war.

Do you support the bombing, you haven't explained your position on this

What is that help within the country? Can you say?

Ik they can’t overcome the regime and haven’t for 47 years and are choking from the oppression. Listen to Iranian people and hear what they’re up against.

It's a very complicated situation that goes back a lot further than 47 years.

What about you? You are avoiding to answer that question.

I wouldn't trust the Saudi prince either but I have an issue with autocrats.
I doubt that airstrikes alone will work but it's possible that they will weaken the theocratic rulers enough for the Iranian people to over throw them. I know its a small chance but I'd bet thats what Trump and co are hoping for.
Iran has been a massive destabilising factor in the ME through their funding and arming of terrorist groups like hamas and hezbola for a long time.
Nobody really knows what will happen next we'll all just have to wait and see

I agree on this but Trump seems to be relying on them to overthrow the regime. It's debatable whether air attacks alone can...hopefully yes, but there's no precedent

We’ll see but I can see why there’s reluctance to go in on the ground.

It's an illegal war that'll cost the US billions. Meanwhile, most of his citizens are living paycheck to paycheck. Trump is beyond evil and needs to be removed now.

Why do you say Europe destroyed its own power? Do you mean military power or economic power?

Why don't you stay on topic and talk about Iran? What do you think are Trump's chances of taking the regime out by air?

Military power is usually linked to economic power. Look up economic growth in Europe vs US in the last two decades. No wonder Trump can afford to just laugh at Europe. And this country is now utterly irrelevant.

I don't think the US is incidental to the UK. I take your point that their impact on us may be exaggerated but incidental is an overstatement imo.

This thread isn't primarily about the UK, anyway. Sometimes people take an interest in other countries' affairs because they simply do, independent if whether it affects their own country.

I'm certainly not opposed to defeating the Iranian regime. You seem to have missed the point of my OP : my point is not that it's bad to attack Khameini but that there is no precedent for demolishing a regime via air alone, and the land precedents (Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan) do not bode well.

On this it’s not actually hard to take out the leaders by air, they’ve done it. So the hard part is the machinations of the regime?

The army and the police etc, you need them not to kill the Iranian people if they take to the streets. I’m not actually sure you can make them do that, rather they have to choose to not do that.

Iran isn’t Iraq or Afghanistan in terms of the people.

If we're talking World affairs then you'd expect there to be considerably more ire aimed at the ayatollah; certainly at least some ire, but no, it's all Trump. That was my point.

Rather than full regime defeat, it's likely to be mere impairment. I think that's what most people expect, most probably don't care either about defeat, if the threat can be contained.

Well, what can I say about the Ayatollah? We can't control his actions . Obviously I think he's (or rather WAS) a loathsome person, that goes without saying. You can't expect someone like the Ayatollah or his successors to act within the interests of democratic countries, so what's the point of discussing him in that context? It's obvious he and his regime will never forsake their quest to impose violent fundamentalism.

Whereas Trump is supposed to act with America's interests in mind. Hopefully the regime will at least be impaired and the war will not lead to greater instability in the region.

That's interesting you think that Trump is hoping for impairment rather than overthrow. That seems likely, despite his rhetoric about regime change.

Several pps seem to hope Trump will help the Iranian people gain freedom from the regime,,but that seems less likely.. 😢 And as you note, 'most probably don't care either about defeat'.

Looking at some of Trump's tweets last night. He has been very consistent on the stupidity and cost of endless wars , especially wars of choice.

In 2013 he accused Obama of planning to attack Iran to cover up his domestic failures. Ok his voters may have short memories. But it's only 14 months since he was sworn in . And he fought on America First and the cost of living under Biden.

But maybe he just doesn't gaf anymore. His niece said he would drag everyone down when he had to face his own mortality.

I agree with this. Attacking Iran might be the right decision, I'm unconvinced right now though. And the hypocrisy rankles.

Well said, Starmer is damned if he does nothing and damned if he does, why. Should we engage in a war that was started by two war mongers. ISREAL and USA , Most Americans I know did not want this attack, they think its a distraction .

News announces, predictably, that Khameini's son will succeed. Will he be taken out by bombs? Hopefully.

But then who will succeed? I hope there is a viable regime change plan. Has the US been planning this? Have they been aiding people who want democracy, constitutional monarchy etc? Or what?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cz0g2yg3579t

The short answer is no. Killing Khamenei and most of his family and cabinet was just too good an opportunity to miss. Trump's advisers seemed to think the Iranian regime would surrender , there would be a popular uprising , or both. Instead it was neither. There doesn't seem to be a plan for this eventuality. Just repeating Plan A. If it had worked out they could have sent a special goon squad into Tehran with Reza Pahlavi.

' Hey listen you mugs , see this old guy who hasn't lived here since 1979 ? Well his pop was the Shah. He is now Supreme Ruler, Shah of Persia , Light of the Aryans. Obey him!'

It worked for MI6 way back. But that day is over. The really squalid part is it's the price at the pumps that could hurt Trump. Not the massacre of innocent children.

I'm an American living in the US. I don't want to derail the thread, but the majority of us do not like him. He was polling under 29% approval rating before Gallop stopped releasing poll numbers, for the firs time in 88 years. Only 33% of US voters voted for Donald Trump. We hate him and are trying to turn the tide in the 2026 midterms so that Congress will have the power to impeach him. His administration currently controls the House of Representatives, the Senate, the DoJ, and the Supreme Court, giving him pretty unrestrained power. While his MAGA base still loves him, many traditional party Republicans are regretful of their prior support.

We know! We are not responsible for the whims of our leaders. I hope you're okay, and that change comes quickly for you.

Interesting Substack post from Curtis Sliwa, an eccentric Republican who ran for NY mayor. I don't agree with all of his ideas, but this post seems on point

https://curtissliwa.substack.com/p/we-wont-be-fooled-again

33% was about the percentage Labour had to get to form a government.

We will be fooled every time by unrepresentative FOTP Democracy - but reorganising voting is a massive undertaking and even Electoral Reform bods don’t seem to have a great road map for it.

A related thing I'm wondering is if the Islamic Republic gets overthrown 🙏, who will succeed Reza Shah II if he steps in as constitutional monarch?

While he seems to be in good health and hopefully can expect a long life, he is 65 right now, someone will have to succeed eventually, and it may be years before he can become Shah, even if the Republic does fall

He only has daughters: Yasmine, Noor and Iryana. There is no precedent for a female Ruler, and while many Iranians are progressive, many are not.

Maybe the best solution would be for him to shepherd Iran into its first few decades as a democracy, but not necessarily pass down the throne to his heirs.