Read the article. The most egregious violations occurred during the Biden administration. Biden is better at Trump as a whole, but on the Gaza issue, both have support for Israel locked in at 100%. People often fall for the marketing - Biden virtue signals while Trump vice signals. Biden made a few token show gestures towards Palestinian rights, and Trump gleefully celebrates his cruelty. But in terms of actual tangible support for Israel? Trump's record is a direct continuation of Biden's. The Biden admin for example were the first ones to propose the ethnic cleansing of Gaza. That isn't something Trump came up with - he just vice signaled with his stupid 'Gaza riviera' plan, while Biden's plan for ethnic cleansing was discussed quietly.

When the US starts being the primary funder of them.

Trump lies.

Yup. When have established powers ever liked a revolutionary government? We don't have to like the type of revolution Iran underwent to acknowledge that it was a radical revolutionary government in the literal sense of the term. No country on Earth has a form of government like Iran's. It's pretty unique. Any time a decent sized country tries is taken over by revolutionaries who attempt a radically new form of government, they receive immense opposition from the old powers. All of Europe declared war on France for chopping the head off their king. Every western government embargoed the people Haiti for daring to violently overthrow their slavers. An expeditionary army of numerous capitalist powers invaded the nascent Soviet Union to try and shut it down. And Iran has been under massive sanctions since they dared to throw their western-backed dictator out by force.

Established powers always try to clamp down on any kind of revolutionary government. It's not that they fear the government itself; they fear the ideas that government represents. Iran needed to be punished. It needed to be embargoed into poverty. They couldn't just let Iran try out its new form of government and let them sort themselves out. Because if Iran can overthrow a western-backed puppet and seize control over their own natural resources? Well that's an idea that could spread far and wide.

Russia is a real country run by actual human beings. They're not Mordor with a dark lord commanding an army of orcs. And Russia wants allies. They're up against a vast global US-lead alliance system. Of course they want allies.

This could very easily spiral into a full-on WW3 scenario. Note, WW3 may not look like what you expect it to look like. We've been culturally conditioned to think WW3 will look like thousands of mushroom clouds over major cities, but that need not be the case. WW3 could be a large conventional war just like the previous world wars.

Russia is already bogged down in Ukraine, and the US and NATO are supplying them. Israel is at war with a half a dozen countries, and the US is supporting them, including directly entering the war on Iran. The danger of WW3 lies is revealed when you ask, why did Israel choose this time to attack Iran? They chose to because now was simply the perfect opportunity. With Iran's proxy fighters around Israel devastated, with the Gaza a smoking ruin, Iranian power is lower than it has been in years. That's why they decided to do this now - kick them while they're down.

Us getting bogged down in Iran, however, presents other countries with their own windows of opportunity. And the biggest one is China invading Taiwan. China has been saber-rattling and openly planning an invasion of Taiwan, to be done at some point in the next few years. What better time to launch it than when the US has already been depleting their limited weapon stocks in Ukraine, and just got bogged down in Iran?

China is already involved in the Ukraine conflict; they're one of Russia's biggest suppliers. Iran also is a Russian ally, providing them thousands of drones. The alliance system of a potential world war is already laid out. It would be Russia/Iran/China vs the US, NATO, and assorted allies.

This would be unlikely to end up in a full nuclear exchange. Direct invasion of the homelands of Russia, China, or the US are not going to happen. But we could see multiple large conventional armed conflicts breaking out in multiple theaters, a conflict between two vast alliance systems that between them encompass most of the world's population.

If that isn't a world war, I don't know what is. Nukes don't need to fly to have a conflict that leaves millions dead.

Dude on CNN talking about how “now we are looking for Iran to come to the table for diplomacy”.

I just can't understand how someone can have such low self-awareness. We just seem to have pulled off an attack on Iran that likely dwarfs the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor that pulled us into WW2. The idea that anyone would be remotely interested in peace talks after such an attack is just flabbergasting.

Fuck. The Mossad got their hands on a Death Note.

Israel doesn’t seem to be using its nuclear arsenal as a deterrent for invasion.

So it's just a coincidence that no neighboring country has threatened them with outright military invasion since they got nukes?

And when has Iran ever threatened to use a bomb against Israel? They deny they're even trying to get a bomb. Do their politicians like to say, "death to Israel?" Sure, but that's just part of their discourse. The Iranians use "death to" as a synonym for "down with." They say the same thing during political campaigns against opposing political candidates.

An Iranian bomb would stabilize the situation because the same pattern has occurred in numerous other conflicts. Yes, nukes don't prevent conventional wars, but they do prevent total war between nuclear powers. Russia would have never attempted its invasion of Ukraine if Ukraine still had their nukes. India and Pakistan's arsenals are what kept the recent conflict between them from spiraling further than it did.

You can speculate that nukes wouldn't prevent further expansion of Israel, but that's ahistorical analysis. Having an opponent that is just as well armed as you are makes you act more carefully. The Soviets didn't just keep expanding across Europe, precisely because the US had the bomb to hold them in check. Israel has been able to act with such impunity because ultimately none of its neighbors can stand up to it. It's only when some of Israel's neighbors actually have nukes, and they have to address their neighbors as equals, that peace is actually possible. As long as one side holds complete military dominance, real peace isn't possible.

We should welcome an Iranian bomb. Honestly, it's what the Middle East really needs to bring it to stability.

The biggest destabilizing force in the Middle East is Israel. They're a destabilizing force because they're an expansionist nuclear-armed power with no hard borders. Their borders aren't actually fixed; they're in a decades-long process to slowly expand them. For those who forget, Israel's MO is to:

1. Destabilize border regions of neighboring countries and foster the creation of militant groups within them.
2. Use those destabilized regions as justification for military occupation of the territory of neighboring countries.
3. Announce the creation of border "buffer zones."
4. Allow their civilians to move into what is supposed to be a DMZ-like buffer zone.
5. Again have civilians in the line of fire of militants, demanding further border expansion.

Israel has been expanding like this for decades, and there's no end in site. Their immediate neighbors are all to weak and destabilized to resist this process of slow Israeli lebensraum. The people in the Middle East are rightly afraid that they'll be next under the Israeli boot, and they'll find themselves reduced to the plight of the Gazans.

Israel is out of control. It's an expansionist military power hellbent on gobbling up its neighbors. The reason they're able to get away with this is because they have nuclear weapons. No Arab nation can invade them without the threat of being nuked in return. Israel uses its nuclear arsenal to conquer its neighbors.

Another nuclear power is desperately needed in the region to hold them in check. A nuclear Iran would serve this role well. They wouldn't be able to wipe Israel off the map, as that would result in them getting nuked in return. What a nuclear-armed Iran can do is to finally put a check on Israel's endless military expansion. We need powers that can stand up to the Israelis as equals and say, "no. Your borders are fucking big enough. You're not taking one more square meter of land."

Cute idea. But unfortunately not practical. For something as valuable/kg as cocaine, you can go to the trouble of using a narco sub. But there's zero chance such a sub could practically carry cheap bulky goods like flour, rice, etc.

You might be able to use them to smuggle in medicines though.

Pedantry is the last refuge of the ignorant.

Israel is an existential threat to its neighbors. The hate isn't irrational. It's perfectly reasonable.

On the other hand, Israel is an existential threat to every nation around it. If there was an aggressive theocratic ethnostate expansionist threatening your border, wouldn't you hate them?

Israel doesn't just want Palestine. They want the West Bank, Gaza, and all or large chunks of Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, and Egypt. Expelling the Gazans from Gaza won't solve this. The Israelis want to do the following:

1. Expel the Gazans just over the border into shanty towns in neighboring countries.
2. Some displaced people in those areas will inevitably sneak back over the border to carry out revenge attacks against the people that stole their homes.
3. When (2) happens, use that as a justification to invade neighboring countries and seize additional land.

Israel has been slowly expanding its borders this way for decades. They seize an area of land, declare it a military buffer zone, but then let their civilians move into the buffer zone. They use their own population as human shields, putting them in danger of attacks by displaced Arabs. Then when this happens, they use this as an excuse to expand their borders further.

If you had a psychopathic country for a neighbor, that intended to slowly gobble up your own nation bit by bit, wouldn't you want them all dead?

It ignores all the previous wars, all the tensions during the British mandate, the tensions during the Ottoman Empire, how the modern states came to be, how they developed their identities, the involvement of other countries in the region, the involvement of distant foreign powers, the insane amount of ethnic cleansing carried out not just in both of these states but also in the wider region as a consequence of that events that took place in this region.

And yet, for all your snowjob bullshit, there is one people in chains and another people putting them in chains. I don't give a shit what the history is. No one has the right to do that to someone else. The Nazis had a long list of historical grievances against their Jewish population. You would have been right there on the side of the Nazis, saying that while you don't support them necessarily, you fully understand what Hitler is trying to accomplish.

a trans state would be dope.

Can we just kick everyone out of Wyoming and make Wyoming the trans state?

Nah this is like if you are the parent of an adult child. They have a rough time. They get burned by a series of landlords who screw them over, take advantage of them, and seriously harm their well being. For whatever reason, they decide that instead of renting, their best option is to go squat in their childhood home. It was sold years ago and currently occupied, but they decided they're just going to force their way in at gunpoint, take over part of the house, and slowly take over more and more of it. You think this is a great idea, and you gladly provide them with weapons and ammo so they can occupy their childhood home.

I'm going to respond to your post with a previous post I made in response to right wingers conflating protests of Israel with anti-Antisemitism.

Only a Nazi conflates anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism.

Those on the right, being Nazis, use the Hitlerian definition of anti-Semitism. In this Hitlerian definition, Jews can never actually be full citizens of any other nation besides Israel. Regardless of their personal loyalty or belief, any Jew in the US or Europe is suspect, only a partial citizen, a foreigner at their very core. This is Hitlerian, as it is the very way the historical Nazis viewed Jewish identity.

For modern Nazis, being a Jew and being Israeli are interchangeable. A criticism of the Israeli government is an attack on Jewish people in general. Nazis like the modern Republican Party believe that Jews can never be real Americans, and that they will always have some connection and loyalty to the Israeli state. This is the very logic that justified the Japanese internment camps. If you think every Jewish person must be loyal to Israel, you are literally a Nazi.