libya should be remembered as the larger blunder than iraq, but fake leftist hypocrites run the media.

iraq was moral, but stupid.

libya was both immoral and stupid.

iran might be immoral if judged solely by the administration's motives, but i don't think it's stupid, and it might work, despite being immoral, because it's not stupid. we'll see if it works.

....and it's worth remembering that afghanistan was a united nations isaf mission to install a government and not a regime change operation. really, libya is overdue for the same kind of un mission that afghanistan saw.

arming the kurds to fight isis, and fighting isis directly, was both moral and not stupid.

	immoral	stupid
libya	✓	✓
iraq	X	✓
iran	✓	X
isis	X	X

the americans are not doing this for the reasons i'm suggesting, but i don't care why the americans are doing this, and if it blows up in america's face, that's irrelevant to me. i am not supporting these strikes because i care about american security, even if i agree that it will advance it. the destruction of iranian fascism is a necessary precondition to advance socialism in the area, and if america can be used as a blunt implement for that reason, socialists should support that. the overthrow of fascism cannot be done peacefully, as was just demonstrated in iran.

i understand that the americans just want the oil.

that is of no relevance to my calculations.

lebanon, for example, is frustrating. the lebanese are not extremists, they are secularists and want democracy, and they want to rid themselves of the plague of hezbollah, and of being colonized by shiite muslims. however, they refuse to fight to assert their self-determination. an attack like this would not be successful in lebanon and should be avoided, even if the israelis have no choice but to keep degrading hezbollah as much as possible.

turkey would be a good candidate for regime change but the dynamics are more complicated and this is unlikely to be a realistic policy decision.

an operation like this might work in dismantling the new fascist regime in syria, which replaces a moderate one, which fell in a moment of poor decision making by the russians. it was a mistake for the russians to let syria fall. however, syria will need time to build the kind of serious democratic opposition to fascism that already exists in iran, after 45 years of resistance. the situation in syria for many years was such that socialists and secularists did not mobilize because it was more strategic to back the assad government as a lesser evil, as they were fighting the islamists. now, syria will need to build a resistance against fascism. that resistance should be supported when it develops.

there is currently no substantive resistance against the fascist saudi arabian monarchy to support. the resistance in egypt and algeria needs to be rebuilt. libya was one of the most progressive states in the region before it was attacked by a psychotic lunatic named hillary clinton that sadly destroyed it. there is no resistance left to support because the americans destroyed it. it will need to develop as well.

in iran, there is a resistance and there is revolutionary potential. the conditions are met for revolutionary overthrow, and the international order should support that revolutionary overthrow or itself be reformed so that it does.

sovereignty has no value in an interconnected world and is foolishness masquerading as principle. democracy is valuable and is worth the use of force to implement.

iraq was stupid because it was obvious that it wasn't going to work, not because it infringed on some moral principle. from a purely moral perspective, iraq should have been obliterated, and there remain a number of countries in the region that ought to collapse or be collapsed. it just had no chance of success because iraq is a deeply conservative society that wanted more religion and not less of it. 

there's a good chance that this might work in iran and if it does work in iran it should be repeated in other states that it would have a high likelihood of success in, although there are few of them. iran is actually almost unique in that sense.

if the guardian claims that revulsion with the iranian regime is not a justification for force, i disagree. some level of tolerance for people different than you is perhaps required in this world, but slaughtering tens of thousands of your own civilians is not something that can or should be tolerated.

the international order needs to be reformed to ensure that states that act like iran are held accountable by it. 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/mar/01/the-guardian-view-on-trumps-iranian-campaign-an-war-that-risks-becoming-the-new-normal