I would like to comment - respectfully - I hope. I do believe death to America is the literal intent. I think the author of the article below is somehow attempting to sugar coat the saying as a means of arming a sympathetic audience on social media. I wonder if those images in the article are even real (upon first glance I honestly couldn't tell). Personally, I am a free speech absolutist. If one feels more comfortable saying death to America, or bah to America, or good will, you idiots, I do not care as none of these sayings are offensive to me. I'd rather you be clear about your feelings than to sugar coat them. I also would say that over the years, my own stance towards Iran has moderated and become more sympathetic. I am ok with an Iran that does not agree with our priorities and I do not think regime change is the optimal outcome. Further, I don't think the killing of Soliemani was intended to signal we intend to change the regime. I think rather it was asking a question in a way that it couldn't be mistaken for anything else. And that question is simple -- "do you really want to do this?" I think Soliemani's funeral can be symbolic (if nothing else) in this respect: It's time for Iran's leadership to give this era of zero sum foreign policy a proper burial.

> I would like to comment - respectfully - I hope. I do believe death to America is the literal intent.

You're not respectful, as you're insulting 80 million people by saying they all want to murder you and other hundreds of million.

You're not being intelligent either, because you're wilfully ignoring the fact that literal translations from one language to another are incorrect. Even Google translate is in fact smarter than you are: just paste مرگ بر آمریکا into it and see what it prints out.

> Further, I don't think the killing of Soliemani was intended to signal we intend to change the regime. I think rather it was asking a question ... It's time for Iran's leadership to give this era of zero sum foreign policy a proper burial.

Wait, wait. The Iran had an agreement with the rest of the world, all of it. It agreed to a very strict regime of inspections and halting its nuclear program in exchange for an increased freedom to commerce with the rest of the world. This was a win-win for all, the opposite of a zero sum game. Trump has reneged the agreement, against the opinions of everybody else, and imposed a complete economic embargo on Iran through sanctions on anybody who does commerce with it. It is chocking the entire country. This is a zero sum game.

What the US is doing is strangling a country of 80 million- a bloodless death but death nonetheless. And if the dying country kicks and struggles, you say "enough with the zero sum game"? Really?

Even after years of being brained washed by the media and the educational system, a typical middle class millennial in Iran does not hate Western culture or America.

Older generations (even in some rural areas) have fond memories of Americanization of Iran in the 70s (which finally led to the Islamic revolution).

The problem that I see with Trump's approach is that it alienates these groups of people that had been pro-American before.

The country and the economy was thriving for a brief couple of years after the nuclear deal. People used their money to visit Gulf countries, east Asia and Europe. I think Internet speed almost doubled in that period.

But new sanctions made the economy collapse. And Muslim ban is a real thing if you are born in Iran. And it does not matter how pro-American you are.

Then now we ended up in a situation that even ordinary, middle class Iranians that could've been in American camp, are feeling under attack by a bully. For them everything that the government has been preaching about the great Satan is coming true.

The Iranian government recently murdered at least 200 (according to the UN and Amnesty International) and perhaps over 1000 (according to US officials) unarmed Iranian civilians. Many were shot in the back as they ran away. [1,2]

How can Iranians still support that government?

Sanctions are probably the wrong approach - they tend to hurt ordinary people far more than the government - but if I were Iranian, living under a regime that's willing to shoot me in the back, I'd hope for regime change.

1: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/u-s-says-iran-may-have-ki...

2: https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2019/12/iran-death-to...

> For them everything that the government has been preaching about the great Satan is coming true.

Maybe it's time to realise it had elements of truth from the beginning.

You missed the entire point of the article and your analysis from what you misunderstood is also somewhat daft.

Supporting war because "[it] is inevitable, and better for it to start on our terms, when we have an advantage" __is__ insane and is not a defensible position.

Are you arguing it’s better to go to war flat footed? I’m pretty sure the ayatollahs and their commanders would disagree with your strategy, not just the US.

I think the parent is disputing the notion that war is inevitable. Obviously if you start with that premise you can justify all sorts of actions that would otherwise seem immoral/insane.