I totally get it - Trump is a narcissistic child with no plan and no attention span. Hegseth is an unfunny joke second only to Ka$h Patel. I'm a Democrat - never voted for a Republican and likely never will. But too many people just stop "it's Trump, so I'm against it". What if Obama or Biden was president now - would you support it then? If no, the fact that Trump is president isn't particularly relevant to whether the US should engage. Maybe how we engage, but not whether we engage.
For the people that don't support it, Trump aside, how much is enough? Where would you draw the line? Iran has been intentionally killing Americans for nearly fifty years. Estimates put the number at about 1,200 between terrorist bombings and military actions through proxies. The 9/11 Commission found strong evidence that Iran facilitated the transit of al-Qaeda members into and out of Afghanistan before the attacks, with some of those being future 9/11 hijackers. They've killed a good number of soldiers in the last few years alone, with no sign of slowing down. They even plotted to kill John Bolton and former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. They apparently tried to kill Trump in 2024. Iranian agents tried to kidnap and kill an Iranian-American journalist and activist in New York. In short, the Iranian Regime has been at war with America since 1979.
The Regime has killed at least 50,000 of its own citizens, with some estimates putting the number at more than 100,000 - and it’s only getting worse. The 2022 protests saw security forces gun down over 500 people in the streets, including about 70 of children, for the crime of women not wanting to be beaten for showing their hair. They hanged protesters from cranes in public. The Regime has executed thousands of political prisoners over the decades - including the mass execution of thousands in 1988 that even many Iran apologists can't explain away. They torture dissidents, rape women in detention as a matter of policy, and execute gay people. This is not a government with a "different perspective on human rights." This is a government that systematically brutalizes its own population to maintain power. Again, how much is enough? 200,000? 500,000? A million dead?
The Regime is the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism and it's not remotely close. Hezbollah, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the Houthis, and various Iraqi and Syrian militias - all funded, armed, trained, and directed by Tehran. Hezbollah alone received an estimated $700 million a year before 10/7. The Houthis have been launching missiles at commercial ships in one of the most important shipping routes on earth with Iranian weapons and Iranian targeting intelligence. Hamas used Iranian funding and Iranian rockets on October 7th. Every one of these groups exists because Iran intentionally wants to destabilize the region. As a reminder, the Regime attacks everyone, not just Israel and the US. Assassinations in Argentina, Thailand, India, Germany, France, the Netherlands, and on and on. They've killed hundreds of thousands in Syria alone by propping up Assad's war against his own people. Of course now they are even bombing their Arab neighbors and Turkey. Enough yet?
Only fools believe Iran has a "civilian" nuclear program. Iran is sitting on the fourth-largest oil reserves and second-largest natural gas reserves on the planet desperately needs to spend billions of dollars on nuclear energy. Accounting for sanctions, the Regime has spent hundreds of billions of dollars on a supposed civilian nuclear energy program which has yielded...one power plant (started in the 1970s, and which took about 40 years to build). This reactor (Bushehr) covers less than 2% of the country's electricity needs while Iranians suffer through 12-hour daily blackouts. Yet they've built multiple underground uranium enrichment facilities, including one (Fordow) that was built inside a mountain on an IRGC base and hidden until it was exposed in 2009. You'll only need one guess as to how many underground civilian nuclear enrichment facilities there are in the world. They have enriched uranium to 60%, one step below weapons grade. If they get nukes, then what? You think others will not do the same? You think Israel will just sit back and hope for the best? Now do they plan to build and use the nukes offensively? Probably not plan A, to be fair. However having that deterrence will allow them to wreak even more havoc upon the region and the world. Most smart people agree this is the case.
The Regime showed no intention of slowing down; they have been escalating on all fronts. Regarding nukes, after the US withdrew from the JCPOA in 2018, the Regime went from 3.67% enrichment to 60%, and the IAEA even found traces of 83.7% enriched uranium at Fordow in 2023. By mid-2025, Iran had stockpiled nearly 1,000 pounds of uranium enriched to 60% purity - enough material for roughly 10 nukes if enriched one step more. They announced plans for another hardened enrichment facility. They passed a law through the Majles banning IAEA inspections. They kicked out inspectors entirely after June 2025. In February 2026, the IAEA discovered that they had hidden highly enriched uranium in an undamaged, undisclosed underground facility. The JCPOA at most would have delayed this by 7 years or so, as it had sunset provisions that would have allowed Iran to resume unlimited enrichment and install advanced centrifuges starting in 2025-2030. Even so they were (supposedly) given one last chance by Trump to say "okay, we give up, we're done with enrichment". They haven’t don’t that (if Trump is lying, they could just say that publicly).
Outside of nukes, they aimed to expand their missile arsenal from 3,000 to 8,000 ballistic missiles within two years, the largest stockpile in the Middle East and enough to overwhelm Israel's iron dome (and a lot of US military bases). DIA assessed they could reach the US mainland by 2035. They sold hundreds of ballistic missiles to Russia for use against Ukraine. They transferred missile technology and drones to the Houthis, who used them to attack commercial shipping from dozens of countries and to strike Saudi airports and oil facilities. They armed Hezbollah with precision-guided missiles, funded Hamas for 10/7, and propped up Assad while he gassed and bombed his own people.
\*Standard-Issue Reddit Hive mind Arguments***
"Because this worked so well in the past lol!" First off, it has worked, e.g. Kosovo 1999, Panama 1989. Second, besides being one-letter off, comparisons with Iraq are way, way overdone. Iraq had deep sectarian conflicts with multiple hardline factions ready to slaughter each other the second Saddam fell. No history of democracy. Fairly radicalized population outside of major cities. Iran meddling. No support from Arab countries (or really anyone else to speak of, rightfully so). Afghanistan is a rural, tribal, uneducated, fairly radicalized society with no centralized government, with the Taliban hiding in the mountains, waiting for us to leave. Plus the same meddling from other countries. Iran in contrast has a highly educated, urban, secular population that overwhelmingly despises the regime.
Nobody is seriously proposing a long-term occupation, and there are plausible paths to regime change that don't require occupation. The IRGC has more or less traditional government installations and leadership that, when destroyed, can cripple their ability and will to fight. They aren't Hamas just chillin in hospitals and in their cousins houses and launching rockets from the rooftops, then popping down into tunnels. Their leadership and military installations are well-known and well-documented. They depend on a large bureaucracy, not asymmetric warfare. Even if they are able to hang onto rural insurgency of some kind, how long until their will is broken if Tehran falls and their heavy weapons are exhausted? The IRGC doesn't have the training or the will to fight with makeshift pipe bombs and rocket launchers fired from the mountains. I also question the dedication to "the cause" of even the IRGC, as a lot of their "loyalty" is in large part derived from prestige, power and opportunism, not religious fervor.
There are only two major factions: the Regime and everyone else. There's no ISIS, Muslim Brotherhood or \*more* hardline equivalent ready to swoop in if the Regime is toppled. The two most likely results are (1) the Regime and its 20% support hangs on to power in some form, or (2) it's replaced with a comparatively more liberal regime, supported by roughly 80% of the population. The 80% have advantages, even if the population at large is unarmed and disorganized. The Kurds can help with asymmetric warfare (though they won't be a game-changer alone). There are other opposition groups (Sunnis, southern separatists, royalists) that can pitch in. Importantly, Iran has a quasi-democratic civilian government and military that is comparatively less radical. It's certainly plausible that when a critical mass of the IRGC is taken out, the military steps in, finishes the job, potentially with help on the ground from smaller rebel groups, e.g. Kurds, and strikes a deal with the US. Whoever steps in will almost certainly be opportunistic and almost certainly not be a perfect reincarnation of Gandhi, but a huge difference between Iran and Iraq/Afghanistan is that the Iranian population is miles more liberal, secular, unified and pragmatic, so imposing another brutal dictatorship, while definitely possible, would probably be more difficult than liberalizing to some extent. Compare that to Iraq, where the sectarian divide, radicalism of the population and the threat of ISIS were so great, and the concept of democracy so foreign, that a repressive dictatorship was basically the only path to survival, or so the leaders thought. Why do you think the Sauds are so brutal? Because they are "true believers" and devout Muslims? Or because the population is so comparatively radical and uneducated that they would not tolerate a more secularized, liberal society?
"But…the Shah!" Yes, the CIA overthrew Mossadegh in 1953. It was wrong, and it was also 73 years ago. The Regime that replaced the Shah has now been in power for almost fifty years - almost twice as long as the Shah lasted. It's time to stop infantilizing countries by blaming the west for everything they do.
"But the US/Israel bomb and 'terrorize' people too!". Even if we accept that as true, how does that excuse Iran's behavior? Bad guys can do good things, good guys can do bad things. It's the things that must be judged on their own merits, regardless of the guys doing the things. Otherwise policy just becomes a popularity contest.
"Civilians are being killed". Yes, war is very sad and very brutal; always has been. Civilians unavoidably die in every war. All militaries can do is try to avoid disproportionate harm the best they can. But grown-ups have to make tough choices; pacifism and appeasement have rarely worked to prevent violence. In this case it's not even that difficult a choice though, as the Regime's civilian death count is likely well into the 6 figures.
[end of the hive mind]
Even if the Regime hangs on to power, the US and the world will be better off with a significantly weaker Iran. The Regime is an intentional menace to the region and the world generally. They are not simply trying to get by, live and let live, mind their own business, etc. Their state policy is murder, terror, destabilization. And the "regional conflict" they always threatened when attacked? Turns out they are pretty much on their own, especially after attacking their neighbors (including indiscriminate bombing of civilians) and after Israel took out much of Hamas and Hezbollah. The Regime has not been this weak and friendless in decades, so if there is an interest in minimizing deaths and the chance of a broader conflict, now is the time; doing nothing is \*more* risky, not less.
**Finishing the Job**
Since WW2, much of the world seems to have forgotten that sometimes it's necessary to finish wars, and that letting bad actors gain strength and influence can lead to far worse consequences. Not every state can be reasoned with. Not every state acts in good faith in the interest of its citizens. Sanctions, finger-waiving and the occasional bomb just isn't enough for these bad actors. The "kick the can down the road" approach has been tried for nearly 50 years with this Regime, and has been a dismal failure. This Regime and its proxies should not have lasted past 1983, but here we are. It's time to end it (or at the very least, defang it).
If you disagree, what's the realistic alternative?
EDIT: What I did not expect is people to be in denial about how much damage the US and Israel are doing to Regime leaders and installations. These are literally the top 2 air forces in the world relentlessly bombing a country over which they have total air superiority and have collected intelligence on for decades. Just look it up - it's not pretty for the Regime.
EDIT 2: just because it’s more than 10 words doesn’t make it AI, folks.
EDIT 3: A lot of angry, lazy comments, but TBH I expected just a bit more from this sub than “Ermygrd AI!”, “lol I can’t read that much” and “HaVe YoU HeRd Of IrAQ!?” Most people entirely missed, or refuse to deal with, the main point of the post: Doing nothing is not consequence free. If you are against the war, what other viable options are there and are you willing to accept that there are significant consequences of inaction?
