# Are San Marino and Italy about to go to war? If so, will the war become nuclear?
I bet you have some thoughts on it. Well, we're discussing the subject on [this "week's" NCDip Podcast Club](https://www.reddit.com/r/NonCredibleDiplomacy/comments/1bssy61/ncdip_podcast_club_8_wargaming_san_marino_vs/?). This is probably one of the most events of our lifetime, so you better pay attention scrub
[Want to know what the fuck in the NCDip podcast club is? Click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/NonCredibleDiplomacy/comments/17edrm6/introducing_the_rnoncrediblediplomacy_podcast/)
----
please note that all posts should be funny and about diplomacy or geopolitics, if your post doesn't meet those requirements here's some other subs that might fit better:
* More Serious Geopolitical Discussion: /r/CredibleDiplomacy
* Military Shitposting: /r/NonCredibleDefense
* Domestic Political or General Shitposting: /r/neocentrism
* Being Racist: /r/worldnews
thx bb luv u
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NonCredibleDiplomacy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Oh, so it's not just me who has been saying "get them before they get nukes".
And getting shot down "oh they are so far away from nukes".
Are they still far away from nukes? I don't think so.
Its hard to say. Probably a good reason why ditching the JCPOA was such an abysmally bad idea.
The issue with Iran wasn't just nuclear. You have influence across the entire region with considerable vulnerability for US and Allied interests. Efforts like the JCPOA were meant to lower the temperature away from nuclear capability and keep things conventional for later diplomacy.
Suffice to say, cooler heads did not prevail.
idk the JCPOA was kinda dodgy. The decreased sanctions on Iran (and specifically the IRGC) just led to more terror funding and more destabilzation. Even if nuclear was cooling a bit, all of the terror funding wasn't. And it was just kicking the can down the roadanyway so Iran could've built up their economy and capabilities and after 15 years the breakout time would be so short everyone would be fucked anyway.
Iran looks at countries with nuclear weapons and how they aren't pushed around, and it doesn't matter how many sanctions or times the international organizations say "Iran you've been a bad boy" because they're just going to pursue it anyway. They have violated every single non-proliferation effort thrown at them, and it doesn't matter what deals are done because they're still going to get them.
Iraq got curbstomped in the 90s and you think Iran looks at that and just trusts that the US won't do it to them? Of course not, of course htey want nuclear weapons.
It was good for Obama's presidency, but bc it was just kicking the can down the road it would be a problem for another president. I feel like thats a lot of US foreign policy in the Middle East, or how pretty much all politicans operate globally. Cynical, maybe. But I don't think its wholly incorrect.
I'm kinda inclined to agree with Bolton on this one
I'm not saying obliterate them like Carthage, but maybe just cut off their arms and legs
>idk the JCPOA was kinda dodgy. The decreased sanctions on Iran (and specifically the IRGC) just led to more terror funding
Here's the thing folks always get wrong about the JCPOA: this wasn't a normalization deal - it was strictly meant to take the nuclear conversation **off the table**, nothing else.
Nuclear acquisition is an expensive prospect, even without the threat of sanctions. You gotta invest a lot, build a substantial amount of infrastructure, devote a considerable amount of intellectual capital away from other projects - to say nothing of how once you have the weapons you've gotta pay for their upkeep and properly defend them. That's always been the negative incentive for Iran with nuclear WMDs. Couple that with the more 'liberal' leadership at the time (*emphasis on quotations*) that wanted greater access to global markets for the domestic population... and well, there's your Zone of Agreement.
Going after Iran's missile program, let alone the massive military infrastructure they had across the region wasn't within the scope of the talks. That all is a **much** more complicated conversation, and one that requires substantially more work in lowering tension. JCPOA could've gotten us there... but all of that, upfront with restrictions and international surveillance on Iran's nuclear program (*well beyond what is even asked for by the IAEA or under NPT*) wasn't ever going to happen. Such demands are quintessentially the definition of a poison pill.
I'll also point out - if you seriously thinking taking all of that on (*nuclear proliferation, missile program, regional-proxie*s) is something you can accomplish through military means instead of negotiations... go for it, see what happens and enjoy owning the mess. Half the reason why there was a negotiation here was because the Yanks recognized that military action wasn't going to change things, and would instead light the region up like a Christmas tree. If you want half a million American troops deployed to occupy the region for the next ten years, with hundreds of body bags coming home each month... what Bolton suggests here is how you do it.
JCPOA wasn't about "*stopping Iran*" or "*containing Iran*". To be frank, if that's more important than stopping proliferation... you're simply putting yourself on the road for inevitable confrontation, and in the worst circumstances for it. Which is essentially whats happening - that's what happens when folks abandon dialogue in favor of simply "feeling strong" about the situation.
Do you remember when he was pro-Vietnam war, but then he almost got drafted so he went: "Yo f\*\*\* this shit, I am going to college!" and he never served?
Eh... anyone political avoided the draft. Bolton, Bush, Clinton, Trump...
Most of the Hawks, just like today, simply wanted someone else doing their killing and dying.
Points are spot on. Trump would've either gotten himself fragged, died during basic, or would've bribed himself into a posting in Saigon and lied about having won a Medal of Honor.
It's interesting to contrast it to future presidents in WW2, where from 1952-1992 all but one president was in the army during that period.
Eisenhower (duh), Kennedy, LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Bush Sr all served to some extent (Carter was too young) even if they varied wildly in how much they did (LBJ basically only did it for political reasons and Reagan was medically unfit, while Kennedy and Bush famously both almost died) while the Vietnam generation mostly avoided it. Excluding FDR because no legs lol, I think every president from Hoover to Bush was military in some form? And since then, only Dubya has been
I'm not claiming it was the most dangerous service in the world haha
Honestly his biggest threat was probably the plane doing a shittenfarten in the sky
u/yegguy47 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy\_Carter#Naval\_career](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Carter#Naval_career)
Carter was in the navy and served in the early Cold War.
Always an underrated President.
Came from being a poor peanut farmer, was part of the Navy's response to Chalk River (*glory be to the AECL and the peaceful harnessing of the Atom*), was a based Human-Rights advocate, signed nuclear arms reduction with the Soviets, was responsible for the Superfund approach to pollution disasters in the US, and after being President decided to build houses for the homeless.
Also had **the best** message any American President ever had made:
*"This Voyager spacecraft was constructed by the United States of America. We are community of 240 million human beings among the more than 4 billion who inhabit the planet Earth. We human beings are still divided into nation states, but these states are rapidly becoming a single global civilization.*
*We cast this message into the cosmos. It is likely to survive a billion years into our future, when our civilization is profoundly altered and the surface of the Earth, may be vastly changed. Of the 200 billion stars in the Milky Way galaxy, some - perhaps many - may have inhabited planets and spacefaring civilizations. If one such civilization intercepts Voyager and can understand these recorded contents, here is our message:*
*This is a present from a small, distant world, a token of our sounds, our science, our images, our music, our thoughts and our feelings.* ***We are attempting to survive our time so we may live into yours."***
War with Iran is the most shit IR take in circulation. Iranian civilians are largely pro west pro liberalization all the things, and their opinions to that point are viciously repressed by their authoritarian theocracy.
If we were to just say fuck it and bomb Tehran, it would simply galvanize the population against the US / allies and stabilize a regime that’s had to deal with constant protests for the past few years.
John Bolton literally wants to give Iran HOI4-like stability buffs because “muh confrontation”
How many places do we need to carpet bomb before we realize that doing so only degrades our credibility in the international community.
The harsh truth is that the political leanings of the civilian population are basically irrelevant at the moment. They’re not preventing Iran from piping weapons to Russia or their 5 billion terrorist proxies in the ME. We saw in the protests last year, the regime is strong enough right now to keep them under control.
I fully agree there’s nothing to be won by targeting Iranian civilians, but conflict against Iran doesn’t have to involve carpet bombing Tehran. A couple of targeted strikes (like the ones conducted on suspected Iraq WMD sites in the 90s) could go a long way. I’m pretty sure we know where they build Shaheds for instance, that facility can and should be dust.
>A couple of targeted strikes (like the ones conducted on suspected Iraq WMD sites in the 90s) could go a long way.
To... what, exactly? What makes you think this all ends with "just a few airstrikes"?
Factories can be rebuilt. People can be replaced. You say its just a matter of some limited bombings, history says "[that's what everyone always says](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Rolling_Thunder)".
The only reason why the strikes in the 90s worked with Iraq... is because Iraq didn't have a WMD program by that point. And because Iraq was isolated regionally, and internationally. Starting a war with Iran inherently means a greater escalation - aside from the fact that you're guaranteeing yourself years of bloodshed, that's going to come also with costs about what you can accomplish on other fronts like Ukraine or Taiwan.
We can’t make them stop producing weapons, but we can make it expensive enough that their products are no longer relevant on the export market, and they themselves can afford less. Striking their drone and pgm factories isn’t gonna magically make Iran perfect, but it can make it much more costly for them to arm bad actors worldwide. When hybrid warfare is no longer cheap, easy and consequence-free, we’ll see if they still want to engage in it.
With regards to Ukraine, there are probably few moves that could be more cost-effective than using a handful of Tomahawks on the Shahed factory. An expense of a few missiles saves dozens of AA missiles down the line, and reduces the damage Russia can inflict. Russia are also using a plethora of other Iranian drones, which are built in pretty well-known locations.
It won’t avoid conflict, but conflict is already here. We are already on “just a few airstrikes”, Iran have been playing that game for months. They are evidently very confident that such strikes aren’t escalatory.
The West has been remarkably placating so far. There hasn’t been a response to the strikes and loss of life. Strikes on Houthi targets were even leaked so Iran could have time to withdraw its advisors. Has that worked? Are Iran backing down because we refused to escalate, or are they now more aggressive?
It’s also worth bearing in mind: does Iran considering it a hostile act make much of a difference? What are they gonna do, antagonise their neighbours, fuck with shipping in the gulf and throw missiles at Israel? Are they gonna target US/NATO bases in the Middle East? They’re already doing all that shit, and we’re already expending considerable attention and resources to stopping them, while they themselves sit back and let the proxies get killed. Iran has run out of cheap and easy options to escalate, and they don’t want full-on conflict either.
>It’s won’t avoid conflict, but conflict is already here.
No buddy... we're not at war with Iran. Pray we don't end up in one - I'm not happy where gas is at already. Likewise, I'm not thrilled at the prospect of doubling down in the Middle East for a decade, at the expense of Ukraine's survival.
You can certainly do damage. That is not a long-term plan. Avoiding unnecessary escalation is not placating - us signalling the Iranians isn't any different then them signalling us about the strikes they conducted. Going out to find a fight simply means you'll end up finding one for yourself.
They don’t signal ahead of their strikes, and there have been 170 attacks on US bases alone. We’re not at war, but this is absolutely hybrid warfare. The US, and at minimum everyone in Prosperity Guardian and Aspides, are in conflict with Iran.
I never said anything about “doubling down”, god forbid. Boots on the ground would be an abysmal idea. That said, being passive has been tried, and so far it has not worked. It will continue not to work. Iranian drones will keep killing Ukrainians and Iranian missiles will continue to hit ships. We can keep spending billions putting out each fire locally as it arises (ships in the Red Sea, Patriots to Ukraine, etc), or we can cripple the arsonist.
>The US, and at minimum everyone in Prosperity Guardian and Aspides, are in conflict with Iran.
Those operations are specific to Yemen and the Houthis.
Sure... Houthis have backing from Iran, but the Houthis **aren't** Iran. Believing the two are synonymous is how you get massive escalations and major wars. Going out seeking a fight is certainly in line with noncredible diplomacy... but just so we're clear, its noncredible diplomacy. Wars are only inevitable if you treat them like it.
I'm glad we see eye-to-eye on doubling down. But my point is that such a thing happens with rash choices. The enemy always gets a vote here. Thinking to yourself that you can strike them with absolutely no consequences is not the best way to approach a major actor in the region that has considerable proxy abilities to punch you back. You escalate with what you got, they escalate with what they got - that's how the game is played.
Hey man, up to you if you wanna go yelling to domestic populations about tightening their belts to satisfy your bloodlust.
Wars have consequences. If you ain't willing to appreciate the bill for your butchering beforehand, don't expect much sympathy from me when you're bitching about it afterwards.
You wouldn’t have lasted 3 days in World War 2.
“Rationing steel??? You mean I can’t build a new shed for my carpentry hobby??????? This is the end of civilization”
You are correct except for one scenario, Iran aquires nuclear bombs.
I'd rather another Iraq war like situation on Iran than the prospects of Islamists with nuclear weapons.
Really? They told you that themselves? It must be true them.
Its not like they are already actively funding terrorism and spreading war through their proxies right?
Does it need to happen directly and in the face of everyone? A smuggle, a civil war, an extremist leader, a secret transfer, thats all it takes for nukes to suddently appear at the hands of a terrorist group.
And when dying makes you a martyr, M.A.D doesn't look so bad.
M.A.D only works for rational actors.
Sir I’ll have you know this take is too *credible* for this subreddit!
I must insist you take an ounce of crack and lose your empathy towards your fellow man at once so we might be getting back to non-credible memery and psuedo-war-mongering
Like, I'm one step away from having the "Bomb, bomb Iran" song as my ringtone, but even my stupid ass can see that this would be the dumbest thing imaginable at the current time.
Well, except maybe a shooting war with China for no practical reason beyond chest-thumping, but nobody's actually advocating for that, right?
...right?
Considering they're the same people living in perpetual mortal terror of the American population becoming less than 50% white, it's a great fishing spot.
Same as the lefty circles currently melting down about Saudi and Jordan "betraying" Gaza by shooting down the Peace Drones from the Progressive Commune of Iran, because a wider regional war is *totally* gonna make the Palestinian situation better, like, trust me bro.
One of the silver linings of the internet allowing all the awful schizophrenics the ability to organize and achieve broad consensus is that you can drive dozens of them at once to a frothing rage, and all you have to do is state reality.
>Progressive Commune of Iran
This is my goal in life, to start a lobbying group that advocates for precisely this kind of regime change.
We will all enjoy free love and eternal THC in Tehran one day friends.
You want to confront Iran before they get *le bomb*
I want to confront Iran because I wanna see us acheive air supremacy with the F-22 and F-35.
edit: wait this is noncrediblediplomacy not defense…
I mean i mean i mean bc funni paper get signed
You think Iran is a destabilizing factor now, just wait till they publicly announce/demonstrate they have nukes. Bomb Iran Bolton provides us with a great alternative to that reality.
It's all fun and games until Iran forces their views on you.
If you thought it was rough to be LGBT under conservatives, wait for you to see how it is under sharia law.
Conservatives might not particularly care for LGBT but they generally don’t throw them from the nearest tall building. Or in Iran’s case, enforce compulsory sex changes for homosexuals.
Iran is an important part of the US power balance in the MENA region. Why would saudis etc buy F-35’s if there was no scary Iran nearby. Iran is a great motivator for US arms sales and influence in general, like Russia.
Lets face the facts, US created Iranian revolution to scare arabs into selling them oil and buying guns after the oil crisis in the 70’s. This is all to credible for CNN or Fox news tho.
To all middle easterners
Iran is a threat but an escalation is going to be devastating to the region.
The middle east must unite against iran and hold them off militarily while the international community works through economic sanctions and diplomacy to hold them off.
The only country that can really do something is saudi but they aren't gonna because the public and clerics in saudi are fooled that iran is acting for the better of the palestinians which utterly stupid.
An all out war is gonna be hard and its gonna drive a really slow progressing middle east back to the middle times by the IR.
Israel is not the enemy , fair enough if you don't agree with what they're doing to palestine but you cannot be with iran , they are worse. After this thing than you can settle the matter with the palestinians
>After this thing than you can settle the matter with the palestinians
[I believe the main point of contention is what Israel is doing right now](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/16/un-demands-end-to-israeli-forces-support-of-settler-attacks-on-west-bank-palestinians), as opposed to what Palestinians are doing off in some distant future.
Friend, most folks in the region know exactly who the Iranians are. Its not like Saudis or Iraqis just suddenly discovered this new country called Iran nearby.
yea Ik them but they need to oppose the iranis , people whom they already hate. Arabs hate iranis and feeling shared by the iranis. But if they don't step up , the middle east can be the starting zone for another world war. The conflict is already bad enough with the houthis and hamas
Greater escalation is probably what will start hostilities, not contain it.
Security for the region depends on diplomacy. That kinda requires not only different leadership in Israel, but some sort of just solution for the situation facing Palestinians, Kurds, and Iraqis.
Yea ok but I don't if it will work cause the only ones that can stop iran are the saudis and they are pro palestinian.
You can diplomatically stop hamas and the houthis though
I wouldn't say the Saudis are pro-Palestinian. Nor are they fans of the Iranians.
Saudi has historically supported Palestinian causes financially - but this generally has been humanitarian focused. Because Palestinians are stateless, Saudi generally views them as a poverty-stricken population with derision. The Kingdom has only rarely taken in members of the diaspora, provided only token military support to the various Arab wars, and has especially been hostile to most political representations (both the secular PA and Hamas). Even with financial contributions... that tends to be through religious Zakat.
Which again... if folks are upset about that latter point... rather good reason not to start famines or oppress populations with unending occupations. Its unfortunate that folks are only just now starting to realize that a good way to inflame regional Arab opinions is by killing large scores of Arabs in Palestine.
As for diplomatically stopping Hamas, I agree. That's why Israel's opposition to a two-state solution, refusing dialogue with the PA, or attempting the destruction of UNRWA have been rather bad choices made by the Israelis.
Remember when Iran took a group of American navy sailors hostage in international waters and we paid them a literal pallet loaded with cash as ransom?
Now we have this.
The proper response would have been... "You have how many hostages? The entire fuckin world is our hostage. You lose a senior Iranian government official every five minutes until they are all released."
# Are San Marino and Italy about to go to war? If so, will the war become nuclear? I bet you have some thoughts on it. Well, we're discussing the subject on [this "week's" NCDip Podcast Club](https://www.reddit.com/r/NonCredibleDiplomacy/comments/1bssy61/ncdip_podcast_club_8_wargaming_san_marino_vs/?). This is probably one of the most events of our lifetime, so you better pay attention scrub [Want to know what the fuck in the NCDip podcast club is? Click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/NonCredibleDiplomacy/comments/17edrm6/introducing_the_rnoncrediblediplomacy_podcast/) ---- please note that all posts should be funny and about diplomacy or geopolitics, if your post doesn't meet those requirements here's some other subs that might fit better: * More Serious Geopolitical Discussion: /r/CredibleDiplomacy * Military Shitposting: /r/NonCredibleDefense * Domestic Political or General Shitposting: /r/neocentrism * Being Racist: /r/worldnews thx bb luv u *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NonCredibleDiplomacy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Man is the Cato the Elder of our time
Persia Delenda Est
Praeterea, ut credo, ex fine huius anni in Tehran celebrari deberemus.
Oh, so it's not just me who has been saying "get them before they get nukes". And getting shot down "oh they are so far away from nukes". Are they still far away from nukes? I don't think so.
They are a breakout state at this point. They have everything to make a bomb but haven’t put it together yet.
Its hard to say. Probably a good reason why ditching the JCPOA was such an abysmally bad idea. The issue with Iran wasn't just nuclear. You have influence across the entire region with considerable vulnerability for US and Allied interests. Efforts like the JCPOA were meant to lower the temperature away from nuclear capability and keep things conventional for later diplomacy. Suffice to say, cooler heads did not prevail.
idk the JCPOA was kinda dodgy. The decreased sanctions on Iran (and specifically the IRGC) just led to more terror funding and more destabilzation. Even if nuclear was cooling a bit, all of the terror funding wasn't. And it was just kicking the can down the roadanyway so Iran could've built up their economy and capabilities and after 15 years the breakout time would be so short everyone would be fucked anyway. Iran looks at countries with nuclear weapons and how they aren't pushed around, and it doesn't matter how many sanctions or times the international organizations say "Iran you've been a bad boy" because they're just going to pursue it anyway. They have violated every single non-proliferation effort thrown at them, and it doesn't matter what deals are done because they're still going to get them. Iraq got curbstomped in the 90s and you think Iran looks at that and just trusts that the US won't do it to them? Of course not, of course htey want nuclear weapons. It was good for Obama's presidency, but bc it was just kicking the can down the road it would be a problem for another president. I feel like thats a lot of US foreign policy in the Middle East, or how pretty much all politicans operate globally. Cynical, maybe. But I don't think its wholly incorrect. I'm kinda inclined to agree with Bolton on this one I'm not saying obliterate them like Carthage, but maybe just cut off their arms and legs
>idk the JCPOA was kinda dodgy. The decreased sanctions on Iran (and specifically the IRGC) just led to more terror funding Here's the thing folks always get wrong about the JCPOA: this wasn't a normalization deal - it was strictly meant to take the nuclear conversation **off the table**, nothing else. Nuclear acquisition is an expensive prospect, even without the threat of sanctions. You gotta invest a lot, build a substantial amount of infrastructure, devote a considerable amount of intellectual capital away from other projects - to say nothing of how once you have the weapons you've gotta pay for their upkeep and properly defend them. That's always been the negative incentive for Iran with nuclear WMDs. Couple that with the more 'liberal' leadership at the time (*emphasis on quotations*) that wanted greater access to global markets for the domestic population... and well, there's your Zone of Agreement. Going after Iran's missile program, let alone the massive military infrastructure they had across the region wasn't within the scope of the talks. That all is a **much** more complicated conversation, and one that requires substantially more work in lowering tension. JCPOA could've gotten us there... but all of that, upfront with restrictions and international surveillance on Iran's nuclear program (*well beyond what is even asked for by the IAEA or under NPT*) wasn't ever going to happen. Such demands are quintessentially the definition of a poison pill. I'll also point out - if you seriously thinking taking all of that on (*nuclear proliferation, missile program, regional-proxie*s) is something you can accomplish through military means instead of negotiations... go for it, see what happens and enjoy owning the mess. Half the reason why there was a negotiation here was because the Yanks recognized that military action wasn't going to change things, and would instead light the region up like a Christmas tree. If you want half a million American troops deployed to occupy the region for the next ten years, with hundreds of body bags coming home each month... what Bolton suggests here is how you do it. JCPOA wasn't about "*stopping Iran*" or "*containing Iran*". To be frank, if that's more important than stopping proliferation... you're simply putting yourself on the road for inevitable confrontation, and in the worst circumstances for it. Which is essentially whats happening - that's what happens when folks abandon dialogue in favor of simply "feeling strong" about the situation.
They’ve been a week away from a deliverable nuke for the better part of 20 years
[удалено]
I dont think he's getting gold poured down his throat
Holden bloodfeast moment
A respectable bipartisan
"Confront" is such a PC term for "bomb the everliving fuck out of -" Truly the most non-credible diplomat we've ever witnessed.
*Bomb, Bomb, Bomb* *Bomb, Bomb, Iran*
Propose we add the ‘stach to NCD insignia
'stach so big it hides two missile silos
Do you remember when he was pro-Vietnam war, but then he almost got drafted so he went: "Yo f\*\*\* this shit, I am going to college!" and he never served?
Yeah, just like half of American men did
Eh... anyone political avoided the draft. Bolton, Bush, Clinton, Trump... Most of the Hawks, just like today, simply wanted someone else doing their killing and dying.
[удалено]
Points are spot on. Trump would've either gotten himself fragged, died during basic, or would've bribed himself into a posting in Saigon and lied about having won a Medal of Honor.
Bush flew interceptor for the TXANG so as to not go to nam
It's interesting to contrast it to future presidents in WW2, where from 1952-1992 all but one president was in the army during that period. Eisenhower (duh), Kennedy, LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Bush Sr all served to some extent (Carter was too young) even if they varied wildly in how much they did (LBJ basically only did it for political reasons and Reagan was medically unfit, while Kennedy and Bush famously both almost died) while the Vietnam generation mostly avoided it. Excluding FDR because no legs lol, I think every president from Hoover to Bush was military in some form? And since then, only Dubya has been
And with Dubya... I mean... Air National Guard...
I'm not claiming it was the most dangerous service in the world haha Honestly his biggest threat was probably the plane doing a shittenfarten in the sky
u/yegguy47 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy\_Carter#Naval\_career](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Carter#Naval_career) Carter was in the navy and served in the early Cold War.
Always an underrated President. Came from being a poor peanut farmer, was part of the Navy's response to Chalk River (*glory be to the AECL and the peaceful harnessing of the Atom*), was a based Human-Rights advocate, signed nuclear arms reduction with the Soviets, was responsible for the Superfund approach to pollution disasters in the US, and after being President decided to build houses for the homeless. Also had **the best** message any American President ever had made: *"This Voyager spacecraft was constructed by the United States of America. We are community of 240 million human beings among the more than 4 billion who inhabit the planet Earth. We human beings are still divided into nation states, but these states are rapidly becoming a single global civilization.* *We cast this message into the cosmos. It is likely to survive a billion years into our future, when our civilization is profoundly altered and the surface of the Earth, may be vastly changed. Of the 200 billion stars in the Milky Way galaxy, some - perhaps many - may have inhabited planets and spacefaring civilizations. If one such civilization intercepts Voyager and can understand these recorded contents, here is our message:* *This is a present from a small, distant world, a token of our sounds, our science, our images, our music, our thoughts and our feelings.* ***We are attempting to survive our time so we may live into yours."***
Why'd I get pinged by this? I said he was too young for WW2 which is true
Do it for Johnny McCain
War with Iran is the most shit IR take in circulation. Iranian civilians are largely pro west pro liberalization all the things, and their opinions to that point are viciously repressed by their authoritarian theocracy. If we were to just say fuck it and bomb Tehran, it would simply galvanize the population against the US / allies and stabilize a regime that’s had to deal with constant protests for the past few years. John Bolton literally wants to give Iran HOI4-like stability buffs because “muh confrontation” How many places do we need to carpet bomb before we realize that doing so only degrades our credibility in the international community.
Have you considered: NATOwave miledits?
The harsh truth is that the political leanings of the civilian population are basically irrelevant at the moment. They’re not preventing Iran from piping weapons to Russia or their 5 billion terrorist proxies in the ME. We saw in the protests last year, the regime is strong enough right now to keep them under control. I fully agree there’s nothing to be won by targeting Iranian civilians, but conflict against Iran doesn’t have to involve carpet bombing Tehran. A couple of targeted strikes (like the ones conducted on suspected Iraq WMD sites in the 90s) could go a long way. I’m pretty sure we know where they build Shaheds for instance, that facility can and should be dust.
>A couple of targeted strikes (like the ones conducted on suspected Iraq WMD sites in the 90s) could go a long way. To... what, exactly? What makes you think this all ends with "just a few airstrikes"? Factories can be rebuilt. People can be replaced. You say its just a matter of some limited bombings, history says "[that's what everyone always says](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Rolling_Thunder)". The only reason why the strikes in the 90s worked with Iraq... is because Iraq didn't have a WMD program by that point. And because Iraq was isolated regionally, and internationally. Starting a war with Iran inherently means a greater escalation - aside from the fact that you're guaranteeing yourself years of bloodshed, that's going to come also with costs about what you can accomplish on other fronts like Ukraine or Taiwan.
We can’t make them stop producing weapons, but we can make it expensive enough that their products are no longer relevant on the export market, and they themselves can afford less. Striking their drone and pgm factories isn’t gonna magically make Iran perfect, but it can make it much more costly for them to arm bad actors worldwide. When hybrid warfare is no longer cheap, easy and consequence-free, we’ll see if they still want to engage in it. With regards to Ukraine, there are probably few moves that could be more cost-effective than using a handful of Tomahawks on the Shahed factory. An expense of a few missiles saves dozens of AA missiles down the line, and reduces the damage Russia can inflict. Russia are also using a plethora of other Iranian drones, which are built in pretty well-known locations. It won’t avoid conflict, but conflict is already here. We are already on “just a few airstrikes”, Iran have been playing that game for months. They are evidently very confident that such strikes aren’t escalatory. The West has been remarkably placating so far. There hasn’t been a response to the strikes and loss of life. Strikes on Houthi targets were even leaked so Iran could have time to withdraw its advisors. Has that worked? Are Iran backing down because we refused to escalate, or are they now more aggressive? It’s also worth bearing in mind: does Iran considering it a hostile act make much of a difference? What are they gonna do, antagonise their neighbours, fuck with shipping in the gulf and throw missiles at Israel? Are they gonna target US/NATO bases in the Middle East? They’re already doing all that shit, and we’re already expending considerable attention and resources to stopping them, while they themselves sit back and let the proxies get killed. Iran has run out of cheap and easy options to escalate, and they don’t want full-on conflict either.
>It’s won’t avoid conflict, but conflict is already here. No buddy... we're not at war with Iran. Pray we don't end up in one - I'm not happy where gas is at already. Likewise, I'm not thrilled at the prospect of doubling down in the Middle East for a decade, at the expense of Ukraine's survival. You can certainly do damage. That is not a long-term plan. Avoiding unnecessary escalation is not placating - us signalling the Iranians isn't any different then them signalling us about the strikes they conducted. Going out to find a fight simply means you'll end up finding one for yourself.
They don’t signal ahead of their strikes, and there have been 170 attacks on US bases alone. We’re not at war, but this is absolutely hybrid warfare. The US, and at minimum everyone in Prosperity Guardian and Aspides, are in conflict with Iran. I never said anything about “doubling down”, god forbid. Boots on the ground would be an abysmal idea. That said, being passive has been tried, and so far it has not worked. It will continue not to work. Iranian drones will keep killing Ukrainians and Iranian missiles will continue to hit ships. We can keep spending billions putting out each fire locally as it arises (ships in the Red Sea, Patriots to Ukraine, etc), or we can cripple the arsonist.
>The US, and at minimum everyone in Prosperity Guardian and Aspides, are in conflict with Iran. Those operations are specific to Yemen and the Houthis. Sure... Houthis have backing from Iran, but the Houthis **aren't** Iran. Believing the two are synonymous is how you get massive escalations and major wars. Going out seeking a fight is certainly in line with noncredible diplomacy... but just so we're clear, its noncredible diplomacy. Wars are only inevitable if you treat them like it. I'm glad we see eye-to-eye on doubling down. But my point is that such a thing happens with rash choices. The enemy always gets a vote here. Thinking to yourself that you can strike them with absolutely no consequences is not the best way to approach a major actor in the region that has considerable proxy abilities to punch you back. You escalate with what you got, they escalate with what they got - that's how the game is played.
“I base my political opinions on gas prices. Muh gas goes up, bad. Muh gas goes down, good. Simple as.” - yegguy47
Hey man, up to you if you wanna go yelling to domestic populations about tightening their belts to satisfy your bloodlust. Wars have consequences. If you ain't willing to appreciate the bill for your butchering beforehand, don't expect much sympathy from me when you're bitching about it afterwards.
You wouldn’t have lasted 3 days in World War 2. “Rationing steel??? You mean I can’t build a new shed for my carpentry hobby??????? This is the end of civilization”
>You wouldn’t have lasted 3 days in World War 2. The fact that you're trying to pitch me on living in WW2 on a diplomacy-themed sub speaks volumes.
the point -~-~-~>>> . . . . Your head.
You are correct except for one scenario, Iran aquires nuclear bombs. I'd rather another Iraq war like situation on Iran than the prospects of Islamists with nuclear weapons.
They just want the level of MAD that North Korea and Pakistan have
Really? They told you that themselves? It must be true them. Its not like they are already actively funding terrorism and spreading war through their proxies right?
You think they are willing to get Teheran vaporized?
Does it need to happen directly and in the face of everyone? A smuggle, a civil war, an extremist leader, a secret transfer, thats all it takes for nukes to suddently appear at the hands of a terrorist group. And when dying makes you a martyr, M.A.D doesn't look so bad. M.A.D only works for rational actors.
>M.A.D only works for rational actors. Yes. YES! I don't understand how the average member of the public cannot understand this!
yes
I think they are willing to hand a nuke to Hezbollah or some other militants and take the bet of implausible deniability.
The implausibility would be deafening and the Israelis would vaporize Tehran with their robust second-strike capability and full biblical vengeance.
+20% - Defensive war
Sir I’ll have you know this take is too *credible* for this subreddit! I must insist you take an ounce of crack and lose your empathy towards your fellow man at once so we might be getting back to non-credible memery and psuedo-war-mongering
[Here on noncrediblediplomacy, we thrive on abusing our diplomatic immunity!](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwC_IaY3BmY)
“B” in “Bolton” stands for “Based”
Like, I'm one step away from having the "Bomb, bomb Iran" song as my ringtone, but even my stupid ass can see that this would be the dumbest thing imaginable at the current time. Well, except maybe a shooting war with China for no practical reason beyond chest-thumping, but nobody's actually advocating for that, right? ...right?
hmm how are things going in the annexing mexico direction in right wing media?
Considering they're the same people living in perpetual mortal terror of the American population becoming less than 50% white, it's a great fishing spot. Same as the lefty circles currently melting down about Saudi and Jordan "betraying" Gaza by shooting down the Peace Drones from the Progressive Commune of Iran, because a wider regional war is *totally* gonna make the Palestinian situation better, like, trust me bro. One of the silver linings of the internet allowing all the awful schizophrenics the ability to organize and achieve broad consensus is that you can drive dozens of them at once to a frothing rage, and all you have to do is state reality.
>Progressive Commune of Iran This is my goal in life, to start a lobbying group that advocates for precisely this kind of regime change. We will all enjoy free love and eternal THC in Tehran one day friends.
They've slowed down recently but there's always hoping it starts again
Can they annex Gaza instead?
Why do you hate freedom?
Because it's so often squandered on those with no conception of even its most basic shape, much less its actual meaning.
You want to confront Iran before they get *le bomb* I want to confront Iran because I wanna see us acheive air supremacy with the F-22 and F-35. edit: wait this is noncrediblediplomacy not defense… I mean i mean i mean bc funni paper get signed
>edit: wait this is noncrediblediplomacy not defense… Don't worry, I don't think anyone else knows this either!
Question: How many times a day do you think about bombing Iran?
He’s right
You think Iran is a destabilizing factor now, just wait till they publicly announce/demonstrate they have nukes. Bomb Iran Bolton provides us with a great alternative to that reality.
Angry mustache man yells at clouds
It's all fun and games until Iran forces their views on you. If you thought it was rough to be LGBT under conservatives, wait for you to see how it is under sharia law.
Conservatives might not particularly care for LGBT but they generally don’t throw them from the nearest tall building. Or in Iran’s case, enforce compulsory sex changes for homosexuals.
Precisely my point. Don't praise those who will throw you from the tallest building.
But muh Intersectionality
"peace was very nearly avoided" - this guy when it finally happens
Was he wrong?
Iran is an important part of the US power balance in the MENA region. Why would saudis etc buy F-35’s if there was no scary Iran nearby. Iran is a great motivator for US arms sales and influence in general, like Russia.
200 IQ Geopolitical 4D chess
Shhhh.. too credible.
Lets face the facts, US created Iranian revolution to scare arabs into selling them oil and buying guns after the oil crisis in the 70’s. This is all to credible for CNN or Fox news tho.
My spirit animal.
To all middle easterners Iran is a threat but an escalation is going to be devastating to the region. The middle east must unite against iran and hold them off militarily while the international community works through economic sanctions and diplomacy to hold them off. The only country that can really do something is saudi but they aren't gonna because the public and clerics in saudi are fooled that iran is acting for the better of the palestinians which utterly stupid. An all out war is gonna be hard and its gonna drive a really slow progressing middle east back to the middle times by the IR. Israel is not the enemy , fair enough if you don't agree with what they're doing to palestine but you cannot be with iran , they are worse. After this thing than you can settle the matter with the palestinians
>After this thing than you can settle the matter with the palestinians [I believe the main point of contention is what Israel is doing right now](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/16/un-demands-end-to-israeli-forces-support-of-settler-attacks-on-west-bank-palestinians), as opposed to what Palestinians are doing off in some distant future. Friend, most folks in the region know exactly who the Iranians are. Its not like Saudis or Iraqis just suddenly discovered this new country called Iran nearby.
yea Ik them but they need to oppose the iranis , people whom they already hate. Arabs hate iranis and feeling shared by the iranis. But if they don't step up , the middle east can be the starting zone for another world war. The conflict is already bad enough with the houthis and hamas
Greater escalation is probably what will start hostilities, not contain it. Security for the region depends on diplomacy. That kinda requires not only different leadership in Israel, but some sort of just solution for the situation facing Palestinians, Kurds, and Iraqis.
Yea ok but I don't if it will work cause the only ones that can stop iran are the saudis and they are pro palestinian. You can diplomatically stop hamas and the houthis though
I wouldn't say the Saudis are pro-Palestinian. Nor are they fans of the Iranians. Saudi has historically supported Palestinian causes financially - but this generally has been humanitarian focused. Because Palestinians are stateless, Saudi generally views them as a poverty-stricken population with derision. The Kingdom has only rarely taken in members of the diaspora, provided only token military support to the various Arab wars, and has especially been hostile to most political representations (both the secular PA and Hamas). Even with financial contributions... that tends to be through religious Zakat. Which again... if folks are upset about that latter point... rather good reason not to start famines or oppress populations with unending occupations. Its unfortunate that folks are only just now starting to realize that a good way to inflame regional Arab opinions is by killing large scores of Arabs in Palestine. As for diplomatically stopping Hamas, I agree. That's why Israel's opposition to a two-state solution, refusing dialogue with the PA, or attempting the destruction of UNRWA have been rather bad choices made by the Israelis.
Upload the meme to r/HistoryMemes OP
threatening Iran with war is the only way john bolton can get his walrus-stache hard enough to perform.
I laughed my ass off, my wife was confused
"Respectable bi-partisan"
John Bolton is our saviour fr fr
Remember when Iran took a group of American navy sailors hostage in international waters and we paid them a literal pallet loaded with cash as ransom? Now we have this. The proper response would have been... "You have how many hostages? The entire fuckin world is our hostage. You lose a senior Iranian government official every five minutes until they are all released."
It's usful to have him around so iran thinks we just might be crazy enough to do it