Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

US/Israel conduct airstrikes on Iran again

1410411413415416424

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,530 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    America's track record of political intervention is very bleak indeed, largely because they aren't really interested in various countries being actual democracies. They're interested in power and compliant nations, especially those with resources that the US covets.

    It could be argued that the US help set up democratic systems in the axis nations post war, but saying that they brought democracy to those nations is bullshit. Germany was functioning democracy before the war and was again after it. Japan embraced democracy after years of martial control. They were happy to be of that type of military rule as it had brought ruination to the country.

    But for the vast majority of countries where the US has been involved it's been a disaster pretty much. Including in Iran, where the democratically elected Mossedeqh was ousted by the US and a dictator was put in place instead because he was more agreeable to US interests re: oil, as you've mentioned.

    There is a long, long, list of political foul play that the US has engaged in for the last 70 odd years.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 4,227 ✭✭✭Enduro


    I googled "who established post war democracy in japan". The first reference returned in the answer was this :

    From the first paragraph there (bolding mine) :

    Japan accepted the terms of the Potsdam Declaration on 15 August 1945 (Showa 20), that ended Pacific War.Japan then was placed under the occupation of the Allied Powers, led by the United States. Thereafter, the General Headquarters, Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers (GHQ/SCAP) issued directives to the Japanese Government, implementing various reforms based on the major policies of demilitarization and democratization.

    It's actually OK to accept that the Americans don't always feck up.

    No I didn't.

    Apologies. It was another poster (partnor101), and not you, who asked that question. I got that wrong.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,053 ✭✭✭Ozymandius2011


    Protests in Bahrain shouting "down with the king". Bahrain has a Shia majority population but a Sunni king.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,530 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    I googled "who established post war democracy in japan". The first reference returned in the answer was this

    You can google all you want.

    But I've been studying the war for over three decades.

    While Japan was defeated and the allies set up occupation powers, it was the Japanese themselves that formed the post war landscape of the country, both politically and socially. Society in Japan is peculiar to Japan, but they'll happily take what they want from other nation's systems and social structures. It's why, when you go there, everything has a familiar feel to it but with a Japanese twist.

    Before and during the war Japan was a highly militarised system, to the point where even Hirohito was essentially sidelined, although on paper he retained full authority. Hirohito, however, was happy to let the Japanese cabinet control matters while he focused on numerous dilettante pursuits. The people, while they revered their emperor, had no say in how the military leadership ruled, even though the facade of a cabinet led by a prime minister was in place. It's why Hideki Tojo became the de-facto ruler there until he was forced to resign in 1944. It was only when Suzuki's cabinet was formed that proper attempts were made to reduce the powers that the military wielded.

    Post war, Japanese democracy was built mainly by themselves and it reflects the Japanese, hence why their insistence on the retention of the emperor was so important to them. It isn't really anything like the US, or Britain. It isn't even like our own. Democracy has grown and flourished there in a very Japanese way.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 4,227 ✭✭✭Enduro


    Great post, and I fully agree with everything you say there about the general nature of all things Japanese (they have their own very Japanese way of most things, which is uniquely theirs), and the nature of the effective military government, and that the post-war Japanese success was mostly built by themselves. It's the launch point for that where we're not agreeing, and I suspect we won't agree. They didn't get a choice about whether they were going to become a democracy. Thankfully, they weren't forced to adapt the American system (which is crap). But the post-war occupational government directed the establishment of Japanese self-governance, and the broad democratic nature of the system. They would not have been able to re-establish a military Junta like they had pre-war.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 4,227 ✭✭✭Enduro


    Sorry, yeah, I was just establishing that that was how I was engaging the discussion. That wasn't meant to be any form of criticism, in case it came across that way.

    Thanks for the clarification on the Jewish statement. That's all very true indeed. The reason I was questioning it is that I don't think being Jewish needs to or should relate to any aspect of the actions of the Israeli government, no more than being a catholic should relate to the actions of the IRA. I can see now that your point was not implying anything like that, and I understand why you said what you did. It's kind of the opposite point of "Just because we're Jewish doesn't mean we support Israel". Thanks for that. And of course, many Israelis oppose it as well, as highlighted by Harratz's great journalism.

    I don't think exterminating Palestinians is in anyone's plan, realistically. I do think that expelling Palestinians from Gaza, and in Particular the West Bank, is a goal of the settler movement and their aligned political parties. But that's not Israel. That's a minority of Israelis, but a minority that is in effective control of the policy agenda of the current government. We in Ireland should have a good understanding of how a small political party (or two) can effectively control the government's agenda in a proportional system, which leads to coalition governments, even without the support of a majority of the population, since we've seen a far more benign form of it here for quite a while now.

    The one opinion I will express here, is that I think that the settler, religious extremist, minority is the greatest threat to Israel's future, particularly as they grow in size as a proportion of the population.

    I do follow the other thread most of the time, but rarely post.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,851 ✭✭✭✭kippy


    Fair enough……hard to be called winners when your country is in an illegal war and your nation is still under significant sanctions but sure the bar is low.

    I suppose the bigger win for Putin is the upcoming death of NATO.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,170 ✭✭✭✭banie01




    Quoting my own bits of über speculation from a couple of days ago now that the Washington post are reporting on plans that were presented to allow the US to stage a raid to seize Iran's HEU.

    That any experienced officer presented this line of thinking as plausible is utterly mental.
    They went beyond my own thinking of "Seize an airfield".
    To "Let's fly in bulldozers and make one".
    Absolutely batshít crazy, unless of course the US now possessed anti-gravity tech aswell as magical stealth invisibility cloaks to drap over the aircraft and equipment they propose doing this with?

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2026/04/01/trump-commando-plan-seize-iran-uranium/ There was an error displaying this embed. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2026/04/01/trump-commando-plan-seize-iran-uranium/


    Credit where it's due, I did say they'd be driven to something audacious by the sheer stupidity of MAGA.
    I didn't think they'd be this stupid though, and given how absolutely mental I still think my version of "The Plan" is?
    They only went and showed my up as a rank amateur when it comes to magical military thinking.

    That there are any officers anywhere in the US chain of command who think this proposal was a low probability plausible op?
    Let alone possible?
    Points to the type of thinking that infects Dictatorship.
    Goering's promise to beat the RAF and to supply Stalingrad by air are prime examples.

    Next up?
    How can they top this effort at strategic brilliance?

    Post edited by banie01 on


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,666 ✭✭✭amacca


    If they attempted it I suspect they wouldn't be topping it for a long time or....ever...talk about further hastening the demise of one's country...

    Caveat however, I'm no expert, not even close, above is just my opinion.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,170 ✭✭✭✭banie01


    I'm not an expert either, more of an armchair general who has read voraciously on military history, aviation and strategy, tactics and operationalisation for 40yrs.

    The level of almost insanity being displayed by the US is staggering.
    They've thrown away detente, negotiation and de-escalation on the whims of a moron.
    The fact that this war, no matter how much Nethanyahu pushed for it?
    Came down to 1 man in the US, without congressional approval or even collective cabinet responsibility?
    Is actually insane.

    They've junked their military's prestige and the fear that others had of American might and particularly aerial dominance.
    Just as the world becomes dangerous for small countries again.
    Taiwan can look at Ukraine and Iran and hope they can take lessons from their tactics especially in face of decapitation strikes.
    But, you know who is now far less worried about any American response to their actions in Asia?
    China!

    2025 & 26 have been great if your a Chinese war hawk.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,643 ✭✭✭✭TheValeyard


    Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit sniffing glue



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 14,216 ✭✭✭✭Cluedo Monopoly


    Yep, the Chinese are loving the US disaster. The breakdown of US-Europe relations will push the latter more towards the east and propel China even further ahead strategically. China is always open for business.

    What are they doing in the Hyacinth house?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,926 ✭✭✭Brussels Sprout


    Interesting

    image.png


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,613 ✭✭✭✭Strazdas


    It would be some stunt by Trump to use his 2am address to announce "Oh by the way, we have just invaded Iran".



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,666 ✭✭✭amacca


    He's such a twit he would probably see it as a good idea....hopefully someone manipulates him to stdk his hand and those that can afford an 800k bet on polymarket get burned

    Could be feeding another twit misinformation about a date too....etc



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 5,785 ✭✭✭dmcdona


    very good summary article from the beeb on Israel's position.


    "Just nine months ago, after Israel's last war on Iran, Netanyahu told his nation they had achieved "a historic victory that will stand for generations", removing the "existential threats" from Iran's nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles.

    Despite the rhetoric of imminent victory accompanying every fresh conflict, the reality for many Israelis is a new state of 'perma-war'.

    "The grandiose promises of destroying Hezbollah and Hamas and Iran are not coming true," said Dahlia Scheindlin, a Policy Fellow at the Mitvim Institute, a think tank focused on Israeli foreign policy."




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,358 ✭✭✭Tazz T


    i see sky has bulletpointed the iranian letter to the us public as ' a veiled terrorist threat on us homeland'. It's nothing of the kind. Unlike Us threats to bomb Iran back to the stone age, it's sensible and rationale. Of course, because of that the letter is being censored and banned. Even AI won't access it due to 'regional blocks'. The US and Israeli propaganda machine in full flow, censoring and blocking access to the original letter. Straight from the nazi playbook. The evil axis at play.

    Find this in any western source

    .“Is it not also the case that America has entered this aggression as a proxy for Israel, influenced and manipulated by that regime?”

    "Is it not true that Israel, by manufacturing an Iranian threat, seeks to divert global attention away from its crimes toward the Palestinians?"



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 812 ✭✭✭engineerws


    https://time.com/article/2026/04/01/iran-war-president-open-letter-american-people/

    Time actually gives a pretty fair summary ofthe lletter although they drop Rubio saying that they had to go first as Israel would attack without them.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,214 ✭✭✭wildgreen


    The text of the open letter is here (extracts below) - seems like Iran has employed a PR company for this war.

    https://english.almayadeen.net/news/politics/president-of-iran-addresses-americans-in-open-letter

    For this reason, portraying Iran as a threat is neither consistent with historical reality nor with present-day observable facts. Such a perception is the product of political and economic whims of the powerful—the need to manufacture an enemy in order to justify pressure, maintain military dominance, sustain the arms industry, and control strategic markets. In such an environment, if a threat does not exist, it is invented.

    Relations between Iran and the United States were not originally hostile, and early interactions between the Iranian and American people were not marred with hostility or coup d’état—an illegal American 1953 tension. The turning point, however, was the intervention aimed at preventing the nationalization of Iran’s own resources. That coup disrupted Iran’s democratic process, reinstated dictatorship, and sowed deep distrust among Iranians toward U.S. policies. This distrust deepened further with America’s support for the Shah’s regime, its backing of Saddam Hussein during the imposed war of 1980s, the imposition of the longest and most comprehensive sanctions in modern history, and ultimately, unprovoked military aggression—twice, in the midst of negotiations—against Iran.

    This raises a fundamental question: Exactly which of the American people’s interests are truly being served by this war? Was there any objective threat from Iran to justify such behavior? Does the massacre of innocent children, the destruction of cancer-treatment pharmaceutical facilities, or boasting about bombing a country “back to the stone ages” serve any purpose other than further damaging the United States’ global standing?

    Is it not also the case that America has entered this aggression as a proxy for Israel, influenced and manipulated by that regime? Is it not true that Israel, by manufacturing an Iranian threat, seeks to divert global attention away from its crimes toward the Palestinians? Is it not evident that Israel now aims to fight Iran to the last American soldier and the last American taxpayer dollar—shifting the burden of its delusions onto Iran, the region, and the United States itself in pursuit of illegitimate interests.

    Is "America First" truly among the priorities of the U.S. government today?

    Today, the world stands at crossroads. Continuing along the path of confrontation is more costly and futile than ever before. The choice between confrontation and engagement is both real and consequential; its outcome will shape the future for generations to come.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,358 ✭✭✭Tazz T




  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,358 ✭✭✭Tazz T


    Because western sources won't post it like they do every trump social post



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,278 ✭✭✭✭A Dub in Glasgo




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,358 ✭✭✭Tazz T


    Mainstream western media not social. Do you not find it strange that the entire text would not be presented to western audiences? If sky news wants to change the narrative to 'veiled threats' then it should support that narrative with the full text.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 192 ✭✭StarryPlough01


    Time article

    Iranian President Pens Open Letter to American People

    by Chantelle Lee Reporter

    Apr 2, 2026 6:05 AM AWT

    https://time.com/article/2026/04/01/iran-war-president-open-letter-american-people/

    “Despite its historical and geographical advantages at various times, Iran has never, in its modern history, chosen the path of aggression, expansion, colonialism, or domination,” he asserted. “Even after enduring occupation, invasion, and sustained pressure from global powers—and despite possessing military superiority over many of its neighbors—Iran has never initiated a war. Yet it has resolutely and bravely repelled those who have attacked it.”

    While Iran are a nasty country (religious extremism) - they are not an aggressive country. Iran have been countering Israel because they were oppressing Muslims and had territorial ambitions on their neighbours (Lebanon, Palestine…). Exploited by US and British oil conglomerates (vultures) - they threw them out, and had a right to do that. Dominated by foreign countries taking their oil - Shah allowed this.

    What the President Masoud Pezeshkian says is true, but there is much he doesn’t say - Iran’s crimes against their own people.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,530 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    For anyone that doesn't want to support Musk's shitshow, below is the text of the Iranian President's open letter. Make of it what you will…

    01.jpg 02.jpg 03.jpg 04.jpg


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,710 ✭✭✭combat14


    this is all wonderful but the reality is iran has been screaming "death to america" "death to israel" for about 47 years ...what did they expect .. the US was never going to let islamic fundamentalists have nuclear weapons



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,851 ✭✭✭✭kippy


    There's more than one way to skin a cat as they say.

    The Americans latest actions, just like their actions last year, don't necessarily mean that the Iranians won't continue with their Nucleur programme.

    And sure lookit, apparantly the deals done the last decade weren't good enough either…….



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,530 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    "Marg bar Amrika" is a political slogan, not the literal wish for death. It has more to do with wishing that America would fuck off out of middle eastern affairs and given the history of US interference in the region, I wouldn't blame them. Remember it was the US that toppled a democratically elected leader in Iran in the 50's and also sided, sponsored and armed Saddam Hussein in Iraq's war against Iran.

    No matter how one feels about Iran, their leadership or the people there, the fact that the Iranians would wish for the "death" of US (and Israel's) meddling in their existence would hardly be surprising.

    the US was never going to let islamic fundamentalists have nuclear weapons

    If the Iranians were serious about having nuclear weapons they would have had them by now. The Iranian nuclear program is decades old.

    Israeli lies about them having nuclear weapons are just that…lies.

    One thing is damn sure, though, if they weren't interested before, they are now.



  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,703 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    You may think it's mental, but it would appear that people a lot smarter than me (I've not been to courses like SAMS (AKA Jedi Academy) and I'm pretty sure the Pentagon is stacked with them) think otherwise. And if you think about it for a second, is it really something the US couldn't pull off? They're not exactly trying to make Heathrow here. It just has to be long enough and flat enough for a C-130 or C-17, well-known for their short and rough field capability, and I suspect not for heavy loads. People are not heavy. It's not something beyond the realms of reasonable capability. In the Pacific in WW2, a 5,000ft x 200ft runway could be built in two days. A loaded C-17 takes 3,000ft to take off. A loaded C-130 can do it in under 500 if they fit assists And, again, we're not maxing payload here.

    To be even presented as a course of action, they will have gone through five of the seven steps of the Military Decision-Making Process, by doctrine. Any course of action must meet the following criteria before planners will present it for consideration.

    image.png

    This means that before it reached the Generals who presented it to the President, the planners must have found the plan to be feasible and to have militarily reasonable levels of risk and cost. That doesn't mean risk-free. Eagle Claw was not beyond the bounds of reasonable thought (The Israelis had previously managed to pull off Entebbe, after all), but it still failed. Whether the political risk and cost are acceptable is another matter, and not for the military staff to decide: Eagle Claw didn't do Carter any favours politically, even though the military cost was negligible. Their job is to present plans that they think they can do, because after all, the decision-maker might choose it.

    I am reminded of the decision to fight for the Falklands. Most reasonable, well-informed organisations thought it couldn't be done… except the one group which felt it could, and tried.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,523 ✭✭✭✭smurfjed


    @Akrasia I guess this is one way to keep them off the streets. Don’t they deserve better.

    IMG_0284.jpeg


Advertisement
Advertisement