>>2916032>Says the Israelis who said openly that the Mossad had been organizing opposition in Iran.>https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/mossad-urges-iranians-to-protest-regime-in-rare-public-farsi-message/ar-AA1Tegub<opens link>"On Monday, the Mossad used its Twitter account in Farsi to encourage Iranians to protest against the Iranian regime, telling them that it will join them during the demonstrations."You cannot be serious JFL
And why should their word be taken uncritically? Also, backing color revolutions ≠ wanting to overthrow the government.
>In addition, the relationship between the US government and Iranian opposition like the MEK is well documented.Yes, the US has cultivated assets in Iran. I never denied this. In fact, I explicitly mentioned this in my last reply: "The US has successfully backed Sunni and minority (Kurds, Azeri, Baluchi) groups that carry out deadly terrorist attacks in the 2000s–2010s." The US cultivates subversives in all countries, even the countries they are ostensibly allied with. Cultivating assets does not automatically mean you wish to overthrow the government. For example, the US National Endowment for Democracy, the main CIA front used to organize color revolutions, funds "civil society" organization in Saudi Arabia, almost all of whom are in opposition to the monarchical regime there. Does that mean the US is seeking to overthrow the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia? No, obviously not.
>Yeah they're so weak that they fought the IDF to a standstill on the ground.uyghur, what are you talking about? Hezbollah is objectively weaker than they were before October 7, 2023. Entire leadership killed, including their most influential secretary-general; weapons stockpiles depleted or destroyed; a new hostile regime in Syria that has severed land supply routes; increased pressure from the Lebanese Govt. to disarm; and more.
>I never suggested otherwise.<next sentence>suggests otherwiseI don't care what interpretative journalistic sources have said, almost all of whom rely on "anonymous sources" to substantiate their claims. All news media in the United States is subservient to the Pentagon and CIA, as well as their own capital interests. There is a concerted effort to scapegoat Israel in order to absolve the United States from its imperial crimes. This whole ZOG-esque narrative that Netanyahu duped Trump is part of this effort. It's always somebody else's fault when Amerisharts look bad. Much of American media is STILL making excuses for why they went to war in Iraq: bad intelligence, dumb administration, 9/11 paranoia, Israel, etc.
>Yeah the opinions of US military officers and intelligence personnel.How does that change anything?
>It's also corroborated by the damage reports recently releasedI'm assuming you're referring to those pictures released by ABC a few days ago. I've seen them. The pictures don't look too bad IMO. A few buildings busted, as well as some destroyed airplanes and tents. It certainly pales in comparison to the annihilation of the Gaza Strip, Lebanon, or even Iran itself.
This is another thing. Because labor aristocracy tendencies are so entrenched in Western and American society, its people are highly sensitive to disruption, no matter how marginal that disruption objectively is. This explains the alarmist narrative among the general public that the US is "losing" to Iran; they perceive a "loss" because they're paying more for benzene or other commodities. And because this labor aristocratic society does not feel the same level of immiseration relative to the rest of the world, it cannot stomach military casualties compared to a society that has much less to lose. Only 18 American soldiers have been killed in this conflict, and Amerisharts act like the sky is falling down as if hundred of thousands of Arabs and Iranians weren't killed by American imperialism. So how can you objectively say the US is "losing" based on a relative feeling? The US has objectively inflicted on Iran more economic and military destruction, death, and destabilization than vice-versa. If we're measuring sheer destruction, then US is clearly "winning," so I don't see any point in invoking these things. We have to look at geopolitical objectives, and I think the United States' objectives are gradually being fulfilled (coercing the Gulf States into joining the Abraham Accords), although it's still premature to make a definitive statement.
>recent strikes against US targets have been in Jordan rather than Iraq and the GulfIranian drone/missile targets have overwhelmingly been in the Gulf.
>The Pentagon also announced a complete withdrawal from Iraq.Did you even read your own link? This has nothing to do with the conflict.
<The Pentagon said in a subsequent statement that it was reaffirming a 2024 agreement with Iraq to end its mission against IS fighters. Many of the U.S. troops still serving in Iraq at the time of the deal, which was made during the Biden administration, already have departed.<After IS lost its hold on the territory it once claimed, coalition military operations ended in 2021. The U.S. had maintained about 2,500 troops in Iraq for training and to conduct partnered counter-IS operations with Iraq’s military. Many have withdrawn since the 2024 agreement to end the mission, with just a small contingent of military advisers and others still remaining in Iraq.