6 ms·
Seriously, what is the benefit to the US here? I can't understand how this benefits the country at all.
by vaughands 1y ago
Seriously, what is the benefit to the US here? I can't understand how this benefits the country at all.
- Schnitz 1y agoThe world is better off if a theocracy whose leadership believes in jihad doesn’t have nukes.
- CapricornNoble 1y agoWhy do you highlight that the theocracy "believes in jihad" and not that the theocracy has issued a religious decree opposing weapons of mass destruction? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Khamenei%27s_fatwa_against_nuclear_weapons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Khamenei%27s_fatwa_against...
- Schnitz 1y agoActions speak louder than words. Iran has been enriching Uranium beyond what is needed for civilian use and openly admits to doing so.
- Smeevy 1y agoWe should probably keep nukes away from these NAR whackadoodles and their puppets as well.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- mslansn 1y ago[flagged]
- Jtsummers 1y agoIt benefits the MIC, this is unlikely to be the end of this conflict.
- arandomusername 1y agoIt doesn't. It's all because Israel has extreme influence over US politicians.
- alephnerd 1y agoWe don't need a second North Korea. Nor do we want to normalize every country starting a nuclear program. Air strikes do not constitute boots on the ground, and the rules based norms around "you break it, you own it" ended with the last flight from Kabul. Most likely, we will conduct bombing raids, but take no part in nation building. Ironically, South Korea wanted to do this to North Korea in 2003 (edit: 1993-94), but the Bush (edit: Clinton) administration pushed back because they were concentrating on Iraq and Afghanistan (edit: Yugoslavia). Edit 1: Nuclear weapons ALONE do not act as a deterrent anymore. Most nuclear countries have second/third strike capabilities and nuclear triad capabilities. This is something that Iran has been working on for decades with a fairly robust ballistics and cruise missile program, and attempts at building a domestic nuclear submarine program. More critically, just about every regional power in the Middle East has been investing in similar capabilities in case an Iran breakout happens. Going from 1 additonal country with nuclear weapons to 3-4 leads to a cascading domino effect (a nuclear Iran means a nuclear Saudi means a nuclear Turkiye means a nuclear Egypt...) Edit 2: For the downvoters - a country who's leadership explicitly chants "مرگ بر آمریکا" (Death to America) will unsurprisingly be viewed as a threat. Even our large rivals China or Russia do not normalize that kind of rhetoric.
- goatlover 1y agoWhile I understand not wanting countries like North Korea and Iran having nukes, it does protect them from invasion. We've seen what happened after Ukraine gave up their nukes. Less we forget, the Neocons of the Bush era wanted to remake the entire Middle East, not just Iraq and Afghanistan.
- tehjoker 1y agothey are trying to cut off chinas oil, settle a score, and defend "greater israel" they are also punishing iran for selling oil in their national currency imperialism run amok
- thinkcontext 1y agoIf they wanted to disrupt China's oil wouldn't they have hit the main export terminal on Kharg Island? More generally, you don't think its likely that, regardless of what you think of Israel, their main motivation is they don't want Iran to have a nuclear weapon?
- tehjoker 1y ago> If they wanted to disrupt China's oil wouldn't they have hit the main export terminal on Kharg Island? They aren't ready to directly start that war. They are trying to cut off the alliances first. Iran is a much smaller country (90M vs over a billion) with a lot of oil. Conveniently, Iran is already so dehumanized many Americans don't even recognize their rights to sovereignty. > their main motivation is they don't want Iran to have a nuclear weapon? No. They have been trying to attack Iran since the revolution. It's similar to how Cuba embarrassed America and was never forgiven. If Iran wanted a weapon they'd have one. However, these attacks may force Iran to get one because countries with nuclear weapons appear to actually have sovereignty. Iran of course retains the possibility of making one, hoping that will have the same effect, but it appears that doesn't do it.
- s5300 1y ago[flagged]
- FridayoLeary 1y agoOil for starters. Iran is the principle destabilising element in the middle east. By proxy they are participating in every conflict. A nuclear iran would be completely intolerable, never mind that their regime might just be lunatic enough to use them. Add that war is bad for the whole world. So the us benefits that it protects her economic (and strategic) interests in the ME, which are real and extremely important, at the low cost of a limited air campaign. There are further moral arguments, but i'm answering your question in the most direct way.
- 34679 1y ago>Oil If we want their oil, we can buy it like reasonable people do. What you're referring to is armed robbery. >Iran is the principle destabilising element in the middle east Is this a joke? The country that has not started any wars in its 300 year existence is not the "destabilizing element". That would be the country that has attacked Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, and Iran this year alone.
- FridayoLeary 1y agoYou misunderstood me. I was talking about oil from the other gulf states. About 25 percent of the global oil supply goes through the straight of Hormuz. If iran were to disrupt that it would be disastrous for obvious reasons. It's logical for the West to work to prevent that from being a possibility. Iran/persia is far older then 300 years old. But again you somehow missed the point. I was talking about the current 40 year old regime, which while not having directly started any wars, have since the beginning declared their intentions to do so against America and Israel. Really you are being deliberately obtuse.
- 34679 1y ago>I was talking about the current 40 year old regime Oh, and how did it come to power?
- amluto 1y agoThis is a strange comparison. Iran funds the Houthis, for example, who commit plenty of acts of war. And if you’re talking about starting wars, it’s worth noting that the present war in Gaza was started by Hamas. (I’m making no statement about whether the actions of either side or justified — I’m just pointing out that, in the present shooting war, the first shots were fired by Hamas, not Israel.)
- andsoitis 1y ago[flagged]
- shihab 1y agoI understand Iran is a headache to Israel, but did it have to be an enemy of USA? Isn't Iran's ambition, and its proxies, are all regional in nature? Have they ever attempted to harm an american living in America? Israel has led an amazingly succesful campaign in presenting their problems (often arising out of their territorial ambitions) as a problem for the entire west.
- andsoitis 1y agoThe US has many economic and strategic interests in the Middle East. The US is leaving many moments for Iran to come to the table to stop building towards nuclear power.
- Workaccount2 1y ago[flagged]
- wudangmonk 1y agoI agree which is why we need to get all these evangelical nuts actively trying to destroy the world so that Jesus come back out of power. No more death cults!.
- ndiddy 1y agoAgreed, I also support the denuclearization of Israel.
- yencabulator 1y agoAnd hopefully also keeping US religious nuts away from power.
- Ar-Curunir 1y agoSo, Israel then?
- jandrewrogers 1y agoKeeping the Arab world from building their own nuclear weapons has long been contingent on Iran not having a nuclear weapons program. It only benefits the US to the extent it prevents the situation where half the countries in the Middle East having nuclear weapons.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- PeterHolzwarth 1y agoGood lord, it benefits far more than just America if the broader middle east doesn't enter into a rapid nuclear weapons proliferation stage. Iran is considered to be a very serious enemy throughout much of the middle east. A nuclear armed Iran is a very bad idea.
- proc0 1y agoThe US is the leader of the liberal empire which depends on the middle east allowing trade. Iran is standing in the way of this and wants to push back the empire's control away from the middle east... but they have their own plans to establish another empire of their own. I know "empire" is maybe an outdated term but I'm just illustrating there are bigger incentives than at the national level. Ironically it is conservative nationalists (who are hated by the Left) that want the empire to shrink and for the US to pull back from this leadership position. The risk here is it could also destabilize the entire world, but that's a different matter. In short, this move is an attempt to strengthen the status quo that began after WW2.If the status quo is maintained it directly benefits the US.
- Workaccount2 1y agoPeople who were born into, grew up in, and live the current western bubble take it for granted and genuinely believe it is something natural rather than carefully built and expensively maintained - for extraordinary benefit.
- komali2 1y ago> for extraordinary benefit. I'm seeing a lot of death and the payoff is... Cheap gas prices? I can't imagine what. But the replies to this laying out all the benefits of blood soaked American hegemony I'm sure will be great for a laugh.
- MegaButts 1y agoThe petrodollar, which largely depends on the US having significant influence over global oil supply, is arguably the main reason why the USD is the global reserve currency and an enormous reason why the US is as wealthy as it is.
- dralley 1y agoThe petrodollar is severely overrated by people who claim it's the cause for every foreign policy decision they disagree with. USD is attractive because the US government is stable and US companies are attractive investments, due to a historical track record of competence and rule of law adherence - unlike, say, Saudi currency, or Russian currency, or Chinese currency. The US government doesn't do a lot of currency manipulation relative to those other countries either. Of course, that historical record is being shat upon currently, and the importance of petroleum is on a downward trajectory from here on.
- kumarvvr 1y agoIf Iran has nukes, then a nuke race will start in the middle East, especially with Saudis, who will want their own nukes. Iran getting nukes is the spark that will start a lot of chain reactions. And islamic populations are radicalized enough that the possibility of a nuke on Israel increases dramatically.
- danenania 1y agoI think this attack makes it more likely they’ll get nukes, not less. They moved all their enriched uranium already, and now they know that there’s no longer any point in diplomacy. The next facilities they build will be a few times deeper, and I have no doubt we’ll soon be hearing that ground troops are the only way to stop them.
- mupuff1234 1y agoThose can be bombed right at the beginning. Israel will probably try to establish a similar status que as in Lebanon right now - "if you make a move we immediately take it out". And the development of a nuclear sites leaves a significant intelligence trail, not sure it can be hidden. (Of course they can always be gifted a bomb, but that's a very different story)
- danenania 1y agoYeah I’m sure it will be a huge success with no unforeseen consequences whatsoever. Since that’s how these things have been going over the last thirty years.
- mupuff1234 1y agoCan't that be said about every path of action in this scenario?
- dlubarov 1y agoThey had already crossed the line into nuclear tech that's specifically for weapons, i.e. with a 400kg stockpile of uranium enriched to 60%. Unless we accept explanations like "scientific curiosity", they were already somewhere in the process of building nuclear weapons, even if success wasn't immanent. I don't know how long these operations will set them back, but if the Iranian regime won't willingly refrain from nuclear weapons work, isn't a delay better than nothing?
- twelve40 1y agothe dude needs a PR win of some kind. I guess he gave up on the Nobel prize and decided to try something else. Aside from that, could really be a chance to end the nukes there and try to topple the regime, who knows what's going to happen, but time-wise now is the best opportunity.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- scythe 1y agoIf this was about the benefit to the United States, then we would have had months of public buildup and debate like we did with the war in Iraq. It is hardly an example of a good decision, but history shows that it was at least a popular one; the majority of poll respondents and of legislators were both in favor of the initial invasion of Iraq. I was only eleven at the time, but I remember most moderate Democrats and independents who I knew (including, particularly, my seventh-grade history teacher, who was no fan of Bush) were in favor of the war. Contrast that to the situation today, when polls show Americans are overwhelmingly opposed to involvement [1] and even some prominent Republican legislators (Gaetz, IIRC) were against the war. This is the Trump show: it's motivated by his ego and hopium. He's more erratic than ever. Historically, American presidents almost never started a major war without popular support (Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq were all popular when they started, and I think Libya and Kosovo were too). I can't even think of a case where the country was dragged into a war that was opposed 60% to 16% in favor. I would be very interested to hear if there ever was one. 1: https://www.axios.com/2025/06/19/israel-iran-war-americans-poll https://www.axios.com/2025/06/19/israel-iran-war-americans-p...
- slv77 1y agoThis paper from 1999 provides some context about the US and Israel relationship in the context of nuclear weapons in the Middle East. The third temple's holy of holies : Israel's nuclear weapons https://dp.la/item/525bc46d51878c5e285d9069a80246d0 https://dp.la/item/525bc46d51878c5e285d9069a80246d0
- kaycebasques 1y agoThis is my honest assessment of the calculus of the move. Please don't interpret any of this as me personally supporting or approving of these motives. I'm just trying to have a genuine intellectual discussion about the potential thought processes of our collective leaders. * Quick, victorious wars can be incredibly popular domestically, regardless of whether surveys say that only 16% of the US population supports the war. Trump needs an approval ratings boost. The global tariff shock was a PR disaster. A quick, victorious war is a tried-and-true approval rating booster over the last 200-300 years. The key, of course, is actually keeping the war truly short and victorious. If it drags on, or if people start asking "have we truly won?", then that's a whole different matter. * We have moved out of a unipolar geopolitical world and into a multipolar one. The USA is checking the ambitions of the rival powers. Want to invade Ukraine? Sure, go ahead and try, but it will be a multi-year slog. Want to go for years maybe developing nuclear weapons, maybe not, and making US antagonism a central part of your political platform? Watch us systematically attack your nuclear program and and air power and do highly targeted assassinations of your political elites over the course of two weeks. Want to invade Taiwan? Look at what happened in Ukraine and Iran and maybe reset your expectations about how that will pan out. * There has been a lot of questioning lately around whether the US will actually help their allies when they're in a pinch. This is sending a pretty strong message of reassurance to allies. * Trump may actually want things to escalate to a point where he can reasonably declare martial law within the US. How do you stay in power when you've already hit your two-term constitutional limit? Your question was "how does it benefit the US?" but I don't think that's answerable because everyone has a different take on what's best for the US. It's much more feasible to discuss "how does it benefit Trump?" or "how does it maintain US's position as a world power?"