Of course it's all speculative, but we're not intelligence analysts. Just folks talking on a forum, so we're naturally going to do so. We can trade arguments all day long, as many have done earlier in the discussion, which is to be expected. If press coverage is to be believed, there's been a variety of opinions exchanged about this topic, even within the Trump administration itself, and so a defense of U.S. intervention isn't wildly out of place either.
On a moral level, which obviously isn't the only layer of analysis involved here, I think Trump doing something to help the protesters is a good thing. It might fail or succeed, depending on many factors, but I'd give him that. On a practical level, things are indeed more complicated, but it's worth emphasizing that there is such a concept as analysis paralysis. Fear of civil war (or fear of nuclear war) shouldn't be the only aspect under consideration. It shouldn't be ignored, but it shouldn't be overwhelming. Risks of civil war can be addressed with further actions, military or not, depending on how much time and effort you're willing to invest (or, for that matter, how much you can get other allies to do so, both regionally and not). I don't think it's a matter of either invading Iran and triggering a civil war or doing nothing, when there are plenty of alternatives between both of those options.
Choosing to not do something is also a decision and it brings consequences as well. Perhaps there is no good choice here, as you've said, but leaders will inevitably be judged for both action and inaction. This has often been true within domestic politics and also internationally as well.
As for your expectations...that would make sense, in theory, and I do note your point about the religious fanaticism of those involved. I also think that trying to quietly seize the leadership would be harder in Iran than in Venezuela, plus they would already be expecting that sort of approach as the absolute minimum, so a different plan would be needed.
Last edited:
