But a great deal of the posts are that Iran was NOT a threat. So Iran has been a threat for a half century, but just not the last few months?
There is a difference between “a threat”
And “a threat so grave we need to launch an offensive war of choice against them.”
I don’t understand how anyone can think this was well thought out or necessary given:
1) this administration claims we “obliterated” their nuclear program nine months ago and is claiming we had to attack now because Iran was “days” away from a nuke and was an imminent threat. Like, even if someone thinks Trump deserves the benefit of the doubt on this you’d think clearly and blatantly lying about the reason for the war is a
massive red flag.
2) we’re lifting sanctions against the regime we’re fighting because those in charge apparently didn’t realize Iran would close the Strait of Hormuz (something we
literally discussed as a likely outcome of a war on Iran in my Nuclear Proliferation course in college twenty years ago).
Seriously, we lifted sanctions that resulted in the regime we are fighting getting an extra $14B! So they’re a massive, imminent threat but we’re going to for them billions of dollars while we’re at war with them?
3) The lack of any attempt to sell the public on an offensive war of choice prior to starting it. Like, you’d think the Administration would realize the “well actually, Iran has been at war with us for 47 years” argument doesn’t convince anyone who isn’t part of the 32% (and shrinking!) percentage of true believers who still approve of the job he is doing. But I guess they’re in a bubble and high on their own supply.
There was no need for this war. Iran was contained. (Admittedly, less contained than when they were when Obama signed JCPOA, but electing an idiot has consequences). They were not an imminent threat. They weren’t close to getting a nuke. (Again, closer than they would have been had Trump not ripped up Obama’s deal, but that doesn’t mean actually close)