[jmyeet]

What I would like people to understand is that this isn't a partisan issue. As bad as Trump is, American foreign policy is uniparty. Just look at the rhetoric from the Democratic Party leadership on an Iran strike. You have the likes of Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries quibbling over the procedure not the policy, saying Congress needs to approve action, not that that action is belligerent or unwarranted.

October 7 happened under a Democratic president and continued essentially unchanged under Trump. Biden consistently lied about "red lines" and seeing a ceasefire [1].

The problem here isn't one party or one persident, it's America's commitment to imperialism, of which Iran is just one aspect. Since WW2 especially there has been so much regime change done or aided by the US as well as military action, it has it's own Wikipedia page [2].

And what did Kamala Harris promise to change about Biden's Middle East policy? Absolutely nothing [3]. It's a big part of why she lost and the DNC don't want to admit that so they're trying to cover up the 2024 autopsy [4].

Don't fool yourself into thinking anything would be different under a Kamala Harris administration.

[1]: https://internationalpolicy.org/publications/the-biden-admin...

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_r...

[3]: https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2024/8/8/biden-vs-harris-...

[4]: https://www.axios.com/2026/02/22/dnc-2024-autopsy-harris-gaz...

[reliabilityguy]

> The problem here isn't one party or one persident, it's America's commitment to imperialism, of which Iran is just one aspect.

Iran is as imperialistic if not more. Why you are against US "imperialism" but for Islamic Republic's one?

[Hikikomori]

The current Iranian regime is in power thanks to US imperial interests. Comical amount of ignorance.

[jmyeet]

Resisting the imperialist goals of the US itx proxies doesn't make you imperialist. It's not only moral. It's generaly permissible under international law.

Take for example the UAE, which has been hit by the Iranian response, who is essentially singlehandedly responsible for the genocide in South Sudan and it does so with the blessing of the US.

The UAE arms the RSF using arms they get from the US and steal Sudanese gold, which they launder through Dubai and Switzerland.

But let's assume, for the sake of argument, that everything Iran has done and is doing is "imperialism" (which, again, it is not), how do you even begin to argue "if not more [than the United States]"? US imperialism touches virtually every country on Earth. Iran at best has regional influence.

[techblueberry]

I’m not sure what would have happened under a Dem administration. I’m not sure I’m against action in Iran.

But one the whole like precedents of the Trump Administration, was that we were going to ignore foreign entanglements, even if they could be perceived as being in our interests.

It’s wild to me how much Trump seems like Bush 2.0 when I think Trump was something of a reaction to Bush 1.0.

[JKCalhoun]

"I’m not sure what would have happened under a Dem administration."

Hard to say. Under Obama we got the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.

[cosmicgadget]

It is amazing that anyone took his campaign claims at face value. There's an extensive record of him just saying whatever gets cheers/votes/money.

[jmyeet]

The dirty little secret here is that the Democratic establishment and thus many Democratic politicians like what's happening. They just don't like how it's being done.

What's they're doing is both bad policy (IMHO) and bad politics. Why is it bad politics? Because this military action is deeply unpopular and you cannot outflank the Republican Party on the right about American imperialism. Remember when Kamala Harris promised the "most lethal" military? What does that mean? And why?

But hte other reason this is bad politics is for the reason you state: it cedes the political ground of being the "peace president" to Trump. Memories are short because he did exactly the same thing in 2015 eg [1][2] and again in 2020 eg [3]. The last one is particularly funny because Biden did exactly what Trump promised to do but the Trump still beat Biden over the head for it.

There's no consistency in any of this. Trump was never a peace president. We knew it was a lie at the time. We know it's a lie now. Nobody cares.

But when the supposed opposition party mirrors his policy positions and offers no resistance to anything that's happening, who are voters going to listen to? The guy who talks about peace, even though he's lying, or the guy who says nothing about peace and just thinks Trump should've consulted with Congress but nothing otherwise should change? Or, worse, sometimes Trump isn't being tough enough?

Then Senator Joe Biden in 1986 called Israel "the best $3 billion we make" and if Israel didn't exist we'd invent on to protect our interests [4] while Ronald Reagan's Secretary of State called Israel an unsinkable aircraft carrier in the region.

The JCPOA was a rare W for Obama (who was otherwise the Deporter-in-Chief and the Drone King). Trump of course dismantled it at the behest of the Adelsons. Did Biden reinstate it? Of course not.

The best case for an establishment Democratic administration now is to do nothing while promising nothing and reversing nothing that ultimately brings in the next Trump, just as Biden/Harris did in 2024.

That's the long version of why I say there's no difference. In the short term there might be. Even that's debatable of course. But long term the ratchet effect only gets worse.

[1]: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/12/donald-...

[2]: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/oct/13/donald-trump...

[3]: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/oct/08/donald-trump...

[4]: https://www.c-span.org/clip/senate-highlight/user-clip-joe-b...

[RickJWagner]

Trump has been publicly mulling over an attack on Iran for several weeks. It’s been headline news everywhere.

I did not not notice any opinions, one way or the other, from other American politicians. Correct me if I’m wrong ( with link, of course. )

[JKCalhoun]

I guess we can laud Rep. Jim McGovern [1].

[1] https://archive.is/LvDf2

[patrickk]

So much of both parties is actually alike, underneath a window dressing of differences (eg woke/anti woke), and a complicit media which does its best to amplify and brainwash people into believing. When it comes to policies that actually affect the elites, the deep state military industrial complex/intelligence services or financial interests, it is a uniparty. Look at how Obama continued the war on terror for example, after running on “hope and change”.

[cosmicgadget]

I am curious what your plan would be for Obama to extricate us from the GWOT and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan.