Posted on 07/18/2025 2:54:59 PM PDT by nickcarraway
Why is it always the West versus Iran? Iranian American lawyer Elica Le Bon says the Islamic Republic’s very ideology is built around opposing the West, reinforced by slogans like “Death to America” and “Death to Israel.”
But what would Iran actually do with a nuclear weapon? Le Bon argues the greater threat isn't an attack, but the regime becoming a powerful deterrent state one that cannot be deterred.
Is Iran truly an existential threat to Israel? And why do millions of Iranians oppose the regime so strongly? In this episode of the Riz Khan Show, Le Bon explains how generations have been shaped by repression, executions, and fear under Iran’s leadership.
See video at site.
Maybe Cucker Tarlson’s interview/blowjob of the Ayatollah will calm the regime down.
I’ve seen LOTS of threads since the Iran bombing where heretofore “Keep us out of wars” people became defacto William Kristol fans/neocons.
I get the emotional neocon response…the govt of Iran is atrocious. 444 days. $100bn of banknotes. But the purpose of American finance and soldiers is the defense of America. Let’s not play the Kevin Bacon game, kids; otherwise an attack on ANY country can be justified as “well if THEY fall, then we get attacked.”
Once you open the door to initiating aggression for one, very bad nation, then there is very little to stop some warmonger from hitting many countries. To wit: the heinous list of Iran’s sins also apply, in part, to Pakistan, North Korea, China, Saudi Arabia, and Russia. By extension, if it’s ok to bomb Iran, we can bomb them.
Consistency demands balking at one penny of finance or blood and treasure going to defend Ukraine, Israel, Paupa New Guinea, or any other country experiencing an “existential threat.”
I think you are compacting a spectrum into a binary.
Of the countries of the world most likely to start WWIII (Or WW V depending on how you count) they are in the top three.
Iran is a threat to everyone.
I am sorry that this seems to hurt some people's feelings.
Why is that an “or” question? How about “and”?
I’m still right.
So, you bashed Trump during his first term?
Nothing will ever satisfy the defenders of Iran and its potential possession of nukes other than an explicit example of Iran using one (or more)
It’s not enough that Iran swears to the destruction of the US and to the destruction of Israel.
It’s not enough that modest study of the Shia philosophy reveals that the mere existence of Israel is the single thing preventing the appearance of Islam’s messiah; never mind the incredible prosperity and technological prowess of Israel. In other words, Iran’s philosophy regards the very existence of Israel every bit as existential as Israel regards Iran’s possession of a nuke.
And is surely is not enough to observe that Iran has chartered, financed, and armed three (or more) separate proxy armies arrayed against Israel. Armies who are continuously attacking Israel in ways large and small.
And so, Iran must be given the benefit of the doubt that they would never give one of their proxies a nuke with instructions to light it off in Israel. No, we can’t believe that. WE HAVE TO SEE IT HAPPEN.
Get it?
Trump is a great President, helped make America great again, stopped Hillary, and lots of other magnificent things. His SCOTUS picks helped get Roe overturned, and lots of other great things. When Trump is on, he's on.
But we can get MORE. And we won't if something isn't done about Trump's Achilles - his personnel instincts, which beget an inability to administer policy. They're a virtual dumpster fire.
Trump 1.0: Sessions, the Mooch, Bolton, Tillersn, Mattis, Giuliani, McCabe, Nikki Haley, Sally Yates, Flynn, Hope Hicks, Reince Priebus, Rod Rosenstein. Oh, and Pence...and endorsing McCarthy. And PA and Alabama primary nonsense.
And this is not an inconsequential Achilles. Indeed, picking Rudy to lead the stolen election charge was a disaster. He may have been America's Mayor but he was out of his league when arguing cases. In fact he was by many accounts hung over and that's why his hair dye was trickling down his face. Maybe that deck was stacked against him, but our "ace" pitcher had no heat and the skipper kept him on the mound out of loyalty.
The whole Epstein fiasco is revealing that Trump 2.0 also can’t get it right at Attorney General. And he WON’T get it better if people play lapdog.
The important factor is Iran has certain allies that many people think we should obey.
Yes
Both.
Yea! Next question.
We are at a point where we ONLY get one side of the story from our media on many issues: Covid is a perfect example.
The other side is not even told, and if it is, it's given little attention and framed in a negative way.
What Tucker is doing is called “reporting.”
If you listen to these interviews, you might hear something which when you fact check it turns out to be accurate, because our side isn't always telling the truth either, nor are we entirely complete, and our motivations are hardly noble.
People are generally smart enough to realize that everyone tells their side of the story with rose colored glasses (when a cop/judge listen). You don't need to withhold the other side unless you want to manipulate the people, where we are at today: Covid, J6, 2020 elections, Ukraine, Russian collusion.
If you listen to this interview and what we're told by the Iranians, it does little to change perceptions because even a non-analytic mind sees the huge gaping logical errors. The only thing this interview does is discredit Iran's leadership which is use to spewing nonsense to its people and not have anyone question it (or else). If anything, this interview shows that Iran cannot be trusted and it totally backfired on Iran. In the courtroom of public opinion, this did not help Iran.
If you're going to do something like this, you need to be factual, the timeline needs to be right, you even throw out points that work against you (demonstrate objectivity and candor) and in such a case even if they say things that some viewers do not like, guess what? It's still the truth. An example of an interview that was generally productive was with Putin (and he did throw out a lot of information at the viewer), but Iran missed the target, completely. This interview Iran gave is an example of how (((NOT))) to do it.
We the public cannot create a cogent opinion without all the facts. It's like a courtroom where you need both sides telling their story and you are the jury. Having just one side tell their narrative, repetitively, resorting to fallacies and rhetoric to construct a faux argument, does not build confidence with me.
—
Not sure how or when willful ignorance has turned into a good thing!
Yes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.