so, am i "supporting" the invasion of iran?

i don't know what that would mean, in context. what i'm pointing out is that the united states cannot allow iran to challenge it's hegemony like this. 

america is the empire. and, the empire cannot allow for this kind of insolence and disrespect from minor players like iran. it has to assert it's authority. that's how empire works.

but, i'm also pointing out that i don't care much for the iranian regime.

in the context of an actual war, my interests are not on either side, but rather with the opposition. there have been scenarios - the spanish civil war, world war two - where the left has supported the bombing of a particularly egregious regime, because it is particularly egregious.

i'm not saying this is like world war two. but, it's not like the invasion of iraq, which was foolish all around, either. i would suggest that it's maybe somewhere midway between the 2003 invasion of iraq and the spanish civil war. 

as previously noted, however, i'm not naive on the point. i don't expect american bombs to be working in the interests of iranian civil rights, but rather in the interests of saudi theocrats. once the mullahs are knocked out of power, the forces that the americans end up backing will likely be the most backwards-thinking on the ground, because that is what america has always supported. it would be a cruel turn of events if i "supported" an invasion in the name of democracy, and ended up with the shah's grandson back in power. it is likely that i would change sides as soon as the government fell.

so, what i'm saying is twofold:

1) iran's reaction was stupid, and america will need to react with extreme force. the media is out to lunch on this. the iranians need to be put in line and taught what their place is.
2) i do actually support some kind of regime change in iran, where there is a viable opposition on the ground, and would in no way want to oppose something that may help them in the end.
3) fuck the ayatollah, solidarity with iranian secularism.