Regime change also overlooks the progress Iran has made after years of youth led protests. I worry there will be a chilling effect on Iranian progressives looking to liberalise their country… which would be the stated goal of a regime change.
“Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it. But those who do study history are doomed to watch others repeat it”
That's a good point. I skipped over the tenuousness of the Islamic regime's grip on Iran. There is a very old tradition of democratic activism in Iran. It still exists, and perhaps has grown stronger, over the last decade or so. But I'm no expert on contemporary Iranian politics.
I’m currently in disbelief that anyone close to the levers of power could take the idea of the US trying another regime change operation as anything other than an absurdity. This is especially true if Trump and his inner circle, given the MAGA movements visceral opposition to such insanity in our foreign policy. Historical illiteracy seems almost too gracious of a description for anyone who thinks this is a good idea.
I want to believe Trump has a plan that doesn’t involve us getting involved in this mess, but I have a growing unease that my desired belief is just blind hope and I’m going to be sorely disappointed.
I don’t see how us getting involved in this mess is anything other than a catastrophe of the highest order. When will the warmongers be relegated to the wilderness where their voices belong.
If Trump does take the bait, it will be the end of the MAGA movement. The disillusionment among the MAGA faithful over such a betrayal will destroy the developing coalition. And I fear for what would emerge in that vacuum.
I won't even pretend to understand how Trump thinks. But you're right to point out the incoherence of his thinking about the use of the military. On the one hand, he portrays himself as an isolationist. On the other, he embraces an old-school vision of American empire. This hasn't upset his base until now. It seems the MAGA movement is okay with the idea of threatening war with Canada, Denmark, and Panama to expand US territory. But Iran crosses a line for them. I don't quite know what to make of it.
I’m not sure many folks in MAGA were terribly enthusiastic about the Greenland Canada thing, either. But there was a certain recognition in that rhetoric that it reflected an emerging multi-polar geopolitical reality, and creating a defined sphere made a certain morbid sense. I’ve not yet met anyone who expressed enthusiasm for the use of the military to make that happen though.
As for Iran, its location in the Middle East-not to mention the “reasons” for getting involved, evoke a visceral reaction. Many of the MAGA faithful are people who once trusted Bush and the neocons, and feel deeply
betrayed and angry about how that all unfolded. They don’t wish to be fooled again, so the reaction to Iran is more pronounced. That, and the prospect of a protracted war with Iran seems much more likely to become a reality, rather than talk and bluster about Canada and Greenland.
Regime change also overlooks the progress Iran has made after years of youth led protests. I worry there will be a chilling effect on Iranian progressives looking to liberalise their country… which would be the stated goal of a regime change.
“Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it. But those who do study history are doomed to watch others repeat it”
That's a good point. I skipped over the tenuousness of the Islamic regime's grip on Iran. There is a very old tradition of democratic activism in Iran. It still exists, and perhaps has grown stronger, over the last decade or so. But I'm no expert on contemporary Iranian politics.
I’m currently in disbelief that anyone close to the levers of power could take the idea of the US trying another regime change operation as anything other than an absurdity. This is especially true if Trump and his inner circle, given the MAGA movements visceral opposition to such insanity in our foreign policy. Historical illiteracy seems almost too gracious of a description for anyone who thinks this is a good idea.
I want to believe Trump has a plan that doesn’t involve us getting involved in this mess, but I have a growing unease that my desired belief is just blind hope and I’m going to be sorely disappointed.
I don’t see how us getting involved in this mess is anything other than a catastrophe of the highest order. When will the warmongers be relegated to the wilderness where their voices belong.
If Trump does take the bait, it will be the end of the MAGA movement. The disillusionment among the MAGA faithful over such a betrayal will destroy the developing coalition. And I fear for what would emerge in that vacuum.
I won't even pretend to understand how Trump thinks. But you're right to point out the incoherence of his thinking about the use of the military. On the one hand, he portrays himself as an isolationist. On the other, he embraces an old-school vision of American empire. This hasn't upset his base until now. It seems the MAGA movement is okay with the idea of threatening war with Canada, Denmark, and Panama to expand US territory. But Iran crosses a line for them. I don't quite know what to make of it.
I’m not sure many folks in MAGA were terribly enthusiastic about the Greenland Canada thing, either. But there was a certain recognition in that rhetoric that it reflected an emerging multi-polar geopolitical reality, and creating a defined sphere made a certain morbid sense. I’ve not yet met anyone who expressed enthusiasm for the use of the military to make that happen though.
As for Iran, its location in the Middle East-not to mention the “reasons” for getting involved, evoke a visceral reaction. Many of the MAGA faithful are people who once trusted Bush and the neocons, and feel deeply
betrayed and angry about how that all unfolded. They don’t wish to be fooled again, so the reaction to Iran is more pronounced. That, and the prospect of a protracted war with Iran seems much more likely to become a reality, rather than talk and bluster about Canada and Greenland.