It really depends where in the world you are. There are places that will begin rationing in the next few weeks if not sooner.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/3/9/bangladesh-shuts-uni...
How is that not casus belli?
There could also be separate arguments that the Iranian plot to assassinate Trump gives the US casus belli.
It is a disease of the Western mind - and particularly Western academia - to deny agency to others, especially people in the Middle East, as you're doing here with your painfully unsubtle attempt to link US support for the Pahlavis in 1956 to the 1979 Islamic Revolution 23 years later. Worth noting that the Pahlavi dynasty started out as autocratic as it ended, well before the US ever showed up.
This is a lazy reverse Orientalism, where people in the Middle East are othered and cast as a perennial victim incapable of taking any role in, or responsibility for, what happens in their own countries. It's disempowering racism in academic garb.
Iranians caused the Islamic Revolution and only the Iranians can undo it. I wish them the best of luck in doing so.
“Support”. Hah. The word you’re ham-fistedly avoiding there is “coup”. You got the year wrong as well. The US and UK self-admittedly engineered it to support their national interests.
If you believe not one but two superpowers can’t engineer a coup in a financially poor but resource rich nation then I’ve got a bridge to sell you.
Why stop there? France engineered and supported an anti-British coup in the underdeveloped but resource rich American colonies in the late 18th century, setting in motion the train of events that led to the Islamic Revolution!
And the Polish General Kosciusko fought valiantly for the Americans, on account of the partitions of Poland. Were it not for those partitions, he'd have been at home! So it is the Austrian, Prussian, and Russian Empires - the partitioning powers of 18th century Poland-Lithuania - to blame for the Islamic Revolution!
But why did Austria desire to get involved in the partitions of Poland, and what long game was it playing vis-a-vis the Shiite scholars of then-Persia...
Hold up, we need a corkboard and some pins. Where's Pepe Silvia in all of this? Who has the Jack Ruby?
You can draw the bowstring all the way to Mars if you want to, but the only people to blame for the monstrous regime of Iran are the people who put that regime in place, and that certainly wasn't the Americans. No amount of "well this encouraged that, which caused blowback to this, leading to that" Substack-level motivated reasoning is going to change that fact.
Let’s put it this way: if we where to stack rank all the countries that where directly involved in the creation of the modern Iranian regime, Iran would be first and America would be second.
This isn’t some theory, it’s a pretty clear/succinct cause and effect.
It’s not clever, patriotic or even a good take to ignore that and hide behind “well it’s their fault for having a regime change orchestrated by us that installed an unpopular authoritarian monarch who curtained freedoms because he would oppose Russian interests and support western ones, ultimately leading to someone worse taking power after decades of human rights abuse supported by the west in return for continued alignment”.
Yes, ultimately the person who pulls the trigger is responsible, but the person who gave them the gun and told them where to shoot is also responsible.
The thing is, it's very easy to get caught up in this kind of rhetoric and lose a lot of perspective. This is the kind of logical chain that leads people to end up deciding that Germany had "legitimate grievances" about the Treaty of Versailles and end up in some pretty dark places. Not saying that's you in the slightest, just noting the problems with that rhetorical style. It's fast, somewhat lazy, and greatly lacking in perspective.
If there's something I think we can agree on, the US role in '53 (corrected date) is nothing to be proud of, any more than *points generally towards the Strait of Hormuz* whatever the hell this is.
There was also the hostage crisis but that was done by student protestors rather than the Iranian government.
Like yes, goverment put in by america wont be hostile to america. But its opponents will blame america for that goverment, because well, they are to blamr. And also, once it fails, all the suppressed anger goes out. And some more, because now america is well positioned to be generic scapegoat even for stuff it had not done.
also I would argue that we should not confuse Iran and the islamists ruling the country. as a reminder the Iranian people suffered thousands if not tens of thousands death recently during violent repression of social unrest. so it seems the Iranian people may disagree with the choices of the people in power. at least until the US joined the israel led war crimes against Iran.
I somewhat understand Israel's agenda and objective, even if evil and selfish depending on the point of view (or selfish, for Netanyahu to avoid legal scrutiny while acting as prime minister).
I don't understand the USA attacking here at all. With rising prices I think Trump should pay compensation to the rest of the world for his decision here. This is now similar to the build-up to Vietnam though - I don't see Trump being able to withdraw, without looking incompetent, so he is now committed to the war, similar to why Putin can not stop his invasion of Ukraine. Two criminals, one thought.
The white house staff have been pretty clear and consistent in the reasons.
They absolutely have not! What are you talking about?
Also, I thought Iran nuclear program has already been "obliterated" last year?
1. Iran is clearly not suicidal 2. what do you think would be the best way to motivate them to get a bomb? maybe attack them? 3. they don't support terrorism "all over the world." they support shia militant groups in their region, for very good reason. WE ARE THE TERRORISTS
We did it because Israel was going to anyway.
We didn't do it for regime change, but then we did, oh wait we want to negotiate, but Israel keeps killing the new people in charge.
We did it to keep Iran from getting nukes, oh wait, there's no clear plan to get the material out and they've never said they're going to go get it.
We now are saying we'll negotiate for the exact same restrictions the JCPOA had, which we could have done without the war in the first place.
We totally don't need the strait opened up, we're super independent, but also really want them to open the strait.
Other countries should open the strait, not the US or Israel that started the war without the buy-in of other countries.
And finally, this is an illegal war for the US. Let's not play word games with the War Powers Act - this is a full-scale war, against a "worthy adversary" that 100% will not end in 60 days and one in which we don't control the terms of its end. Iran posed no imminent threat to the United States. Other than the most crazed warmongers like Lindsey Graham, it seems to me that the members of Congress who have been briefed in classified settings are in bipartisan agreement that this was a Bad Idea and that further involvement is a Worse Idea.
This is a colossal strategic screw-up, to use the most polite understated terms possible.
With how many countries Israel started direct war with? With how many countries USA started direct war with? (thousand of miles away and contents apart)
That guy collaborated with US forces, led a 2001 uprising against the Taliban in Herat, effectively liberating the town before US army had to make contact with the enemy. Do you understand what leading a local uprising against the Taliban in 2001 meant?
Trump blew up his ass, and bragged on national television.
Iran was the first ME country to sympathize and hold candle vigils after the fucking Saudi’s (the guys Trump rolls out the red carpet for, btw) blew up the towers, things were ready to normalize - and then Bush says they are part of the axis of evil with Iraq (which Iranians had a war shortly before that) and North Korea.
Iraquís started chanting “death to America” after we murdered 1 million of their fellow citizens.
They hate us not only because they are religious freaks, but also because we fuck with their country non-stop. We just go around blowing shit up, or enforcing regime change (Iran-Contra?). It’s unsurprising lots of them hate our guts - I would too.
Ps. LATAM is the same, btw - we fucked with their governments non-stop, the only ones that like us are the rich fucks that want to use the military to further amass fortunes.
Why is the burden on us to disprove what they tell us they want to do and are taking actions to accomplish? When someone says they're trying to kill you and is actively working to make that happen, it is prudent to believe them.
As an aside: Iran is one of the youngest nations on earth. The government threatening is one thing. Most of the younger Iranians were sympathetic to the West. It was only a matter of time before the regime would be gone or at least soften. But when you bomb a country that generally tends to cause a rally-round-the flag effect (see Britain in WWII, for example). So we've probably blown our chance at rapprochement for quite a while. The regime can tell it's citizens "see, we warned you about America, the Great Satan! "
There is no rapprochement with people whose goal is to kill you and who don't mind so much if they die while trying.
The only way these things are alike is not useful. It's true that they both said things. But everyone understands that, even though Trump is a reckless idiot, he is saying bellicose things during a military offensive; not that he plans to annihilate Iran with nuclear weapons.
The people in charge of Iran who are acquiring nuclear weapons actually intend to use them. Besides the nuclear weapons, the quantity of conventional weapons they are stockpiling is an existential threat to Israel.
I'm going to give the Iranians credit for understanding that the intention of the US is to mitigate the threat that its autocracy poses to other countries. But it doesn't really matter. They can't be allowed to develop nuclear weapons or pose an existential threat to Israel. Neither of those aims was going to be accomplished waiting for some sort of sea change effected by an unarmed citizenry oppressed by a ruthless regime.
It just doesn’t make any sense, from the guys that had Hezbollah using their explosive pagers for years.
If there is anyone worth approaching with a double dose of skepticism is this Israeli Prime Minister in bed with religious extremists, who failed his primary mandate and is self-dealing with a consummated conman like Trump
If you know someone in town that regularly threatens you and your friends with death[1] and you see them buying a gun, you do something about it before they also get the bullets.
Before replying please read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_latency
Iran has been steadily decreasing their “breakout time” to levels that Israel and the US considered unacceptable. Timelines too short to police with diplomacy.
They forced the hand of the Western world, they and their supporters are crying crocodile tears.
“We were just innocently enriching near weapons grade Uranium in underground facilities hardened against attack and inspection! Calm down bro!”
[1] To stretch the analogy further: they regularly hand out knives to their cousins, all of whom have stabbed your friend in a dark alley once or twice, to the point that your friend has to wear body armor at all times.
Words don't matter as much as actions and the biggest attacks on the US by countries in the ME were done by Israel and Saudi Arabia.
As for why America is involved in a conflict between Israel and Iran, it's because we have a Republican administration and a big segment of Republicans (Christian Evangelicals) want the US to ensure Israel as a state survives (also for purely fanatical reasons).
So, when are we bombing Israel to prevent the world being held hostage by nuke-wielding religious fanatics?
and the starting point of all this is the US coup in Iran that eventually lead to the islamists seizing power in Iran.
1982, Israel invades Lebanon. Iran backs Hezbollah, which triggers its first killing of Israelis in 1983.
There would have been reasons to back the creation of Hamas long before 1982 but the revolution in Iran only took place in 1979, so through the decades of Palestinian oppression, massacres and occupation, Iran was aligned, so it started with a support for Lebanese resistance. Then much later the backing of Palestinian resistance, then Yemen via the Houthis.
It is true there has been constant funding, and of an increasing number of proxy groups, but Israel's invasion was the trigger. Backing nations, and paramilitary groups is pretty common: see U.S backing Ukraine regular army, and private mercenaries.
Every military action will have an on-paper "justification". It's kind of irrelevant frankly. But to cut bullshit, it really isn't that complicated.
Venezuela is an extremely oil rich country. Countries in the middle-east region, including Iran are very oil rich.
And that's in large part why US (by this point firmly decaying petrostate propped by petrodollar) is constantly there "meddling" and ensuring all the oil is continuously bought using US dollars.
That is wholly sufficient to explain things.
Every other cartoonish-evil justification "Iran wants to build nukes to bomb US, etc" is largely bullshit (why, for example, Iran doesn't want to nuke.... say Germany or France? hmmm.....)
Just add Saudi Arabia / Iran Sunni-Shia hatred and you've got war.
Oil is the last remaining 'strategic commodity' everyone (including China) needs to keep a balance of power.
Many people missing the actual game here.