John Mearsheimer is such a dumbass

[Van_Bilderass]

Superb posts by Phantom. Iran's own words are worth reading, but it's probably TL;DR for most.

Iran was a more tollerant land until the Radical Khomeini took over. Itīs not the people of Iran who are a danger itīs their Leaders

I hardly know anything about Iran's history but my understanding is that the US installed the Shah, basically over oil, he was a puppet. They, the CIA, now had the Shah's son, the 'Crown Price of Iran' in exile waiting in the wings to be flown in when the regime fell, which they expected to happen in a few days with the initial decapitation strike. I don't know, but I saw some mention that the Shah was brutal and repressive too? Unfortunately, what this war will likely do is increase repression within Iran. Iran was so infiltrated by Mossad and various malicious actors.

Mearsheimer is strategically analyzing the actions of both actors through a realist IR framework, not making moral judgements.

I think this is key to understanding him.

[Gargamel]

Mearsheimer is strategically analyzing the actions of both actors through a realist IR framework, not making moral judgements. He argues that Russia's response can be explained as a predictable defensive move against NATO expansion and provocation, whereas Israel is driven by the desire for regional dominance as opposed to a genuine belief that a nuclear Iran poses an existential threat to them.

What an idiot explanation by a Mearsheimer fanboy. The name fits lol. Where was I making moral judgements? You can read my original post again and it still holds. But Iam happy to repeat the exposure of Mearsheimer contradictory views for the dim witted.

Like I said how can you argue that Russias invasion of Ukraine is a predictable defensive move against NATO expansion. NATO is a defensive alliance and Ukraine is a sovereign state. It is clearly the case that Russia wants to exert dominance over Ukraine. But Israel nuking Iran before they get an atomic bomb is not a predictable defensive move, when Irans numerously stated goal is the obliteration of Israel? Holding these 2 contradictory views does not make sense and Mearsheimer comes off as an idiot.

The US and Israel repeatedly stated that Iran can never have an atomic bomb and Iran should have known better before they tried to develop it. Maybe they got the message now. In the realist framework Mearsheimer, Iran and Phantom Spunker are the idiots clearly.

[Donny]

Superb posts by Phantom. Iran's own words are worth reading, but it's probably TL;DR for most.

I hardly know anything about Iran's history but my understanding is that the US installed the Shah, basically over oil, he was a puppet. They, the CIA, now had the Shah's son, the 'Crown Price of Iran' in exile waiting in the wings to be flown in when the regime fell, which they expected to happen in a few days with the initial decapitation strike. I don't know, but I saw some mention that the Shah was brutal and repressive too? Unfortunately, what this war will likely do is increase repression within Iran. Iran was so infiltrated by Mossad and various malicious actors.

I think this is key to understanding him.

as i wrote before the USA only has itīs own interests at heart, however itīs better to have a puppet in charge you can control than a volitile boiling pot of hatred

[Van_Bilderass]

But Israel nuking Iran before they get an atomic bomb is not a predictable defensive move, when Irans numerously stated goal is the obliteration of Israel?

The US and Israel repeatedly stated that Iran can never have an atomic bomb and Iran should have known better before they tried to develop it. Maybe they got the message now.

What do you think of Iran's own statements regarding Israel that Phantom quoted? You may call lies and maybe they are but them calling for killing all Jews or destroying Israel as country is not correct.

I think the message they got is they should have had a nuke for deterrence. I don't think they ever actually wanted a nuke per se. No one has attacked North Korea for a reason, they also have a leader everyone thinks would push a button immediately upon attack. Iran doesn't want it but they also don't want to be attacked like they just were. They perhaps foolishly enriched to 60% for leverage in negotiations but the intelligence agencies all agreed they have not worked on a nuclear bomb since like 2003 or whatever it was. Now everyone is worried that if Iran is perhaps given a nuke then Saudi, Turkey, Egypt, Ukraine and so on will also decide they need one. The Russians are absolutely horrified at this development, they were always against Iran ever acquiring a nuke, but now the likelihood is bigger, not smaller.

The goal I think was regime change, not destroying the nuclear program, it was just a pretext. Clearly they expected the regime to fall immediately after the decapitation strike. They hadn't planned on a long attrition war, they knew they didn't have the means, before the US bombing they would be out of defensive missiles in 1-3 weeks.

[Phantom Spunker]

What an idiot explanation by a Mearsheimer fanboy. The name fits lol. Where was I making moral judgements? You can read my original post again and it still holds. But Iam happy to repeat the exposure of Mearsheimer contradictory views for the dim witted.

Like I said how can you argue that Russias invasion of Ukraine is a predictable defensive move against NATO expansion. NATO is a defensive alliance and Ukraine is a sovereign state. It is clearly the case that Russia wants to exert dominance over Ukraine. But Israel nuking Iran before they get an atomic bomb is not a predictable defensive move, when Irans numerously stated goal is the obliteration of Israel? Holding these 2 contradictory views does not make sense and Mearsheimer comes off as an idiot.

The US and Israel repeatedly stated that Iran can never have an atomic bomb and Iran should have known better before they tried to develop it. Maybe they got the message now. In the realist framework Mearsheimer, Iran and Phantom Spunker are the idiots clearly.

Sorry, cock breath, I never said you were making moral judgements. I said that Mearsheimer was giving causal explanations as opposed to making moral judgements and claiming Russia is 'entitled' to attack. Clearly you struggle with basic reading comprehension so it's no surprise that you have absolutely zero clue about the history of Iran and Israel, too.

And NATO is a purely defensive alliance based on what? The fact that they say they are?

I suppose their 1999 bombing to assist a non-NATO member, without UN Security Council approval, under the guise of humanitarian intervention was defensive, right?

Or how about the long-term military occupation of Afghanistan? Or the 2011 bombing of Libya to enact regime change which led to civil war?

By your logic, North Korea is a democratic republic, LOL. What a dunce.

'The US and Israel repeatedly stated that Iran can never have an atomic bomb and Iran should have known better before they tried to develop it. Maybe they got the message now.'

Great, that sounds legitimate. And Russia repeatedly stated that they would never allow a hostile military alliance on its border so perhaps Ukraine should have known better, right? Maybe they get the message now!

Lastly, I'm not sure how correctly summarizing a few of his arguments makes me a fanboy, but it's not like you followed up with anything coherent anyway, so I'm happy just to take your comments as the misinformed ramblings of a stupid tosser.

[Gargamel]

Phantom spunker. I dont even need to add an insult to that. LOL. You Are only adding little factoids that do nothing to resolve mearsheimers contradiction. Iran is such a hostile nation with many of them and their proxies happy to blow themselves up if they could only take Isreal with them. How is it not a defensive move for Israel to strike first. The realist view is one of strength and power and clearly Iran and Russia are the weak ones. If you love Iran so much I suggest you move you there and marry a rag head. Maybe you can find happiness there and can stop being a sore loser on a Message Board.

[Van_Bilderass]

The realist view is one of strength and power and clearly Iran and Russia are the weak ones.

Iran is so weak the war had to be stopped after 12 days. IDF still takes casualties in Gaza, just the other day it was 7 diaper wearing soldiers and it should be like shooting fish in a barrel for Israel. Israel has the Samson Option, that's it really. They can nuke Iran but Israel would never, ever be forgiven for that.

Russia only has the biggest nuclear arsenal. Russian makes more missiles in a month than the whole of NATO combined in a year, and that's including the US! Just now heard some statistic about tanks, NATO makes 40 a year and Russia makes 12000. Oreshnik is in serial production now, whatever that means.

A couple of weeks ago Putin said that they had offered a signed military alliance with Iran but they declined. The reason is that Iran, at least partly, has always wanted an alliance with the US and didn't want to upset them. Russia offered security, maybe they would've wanted a couple of bases in Iran, don't know exactly. But what did Iran get for trying to please the west? They got fucked in the ass. But now, will they take a deal? I'm pretty sure there will be Russian deals offered so we'll see. Israel will attack again. Any deal with the US cannot be trusted, there is zero trust in Trump anywhere, we know what "negotiations" means to him.