2026 Israeli–United States strikes on Iran

[deirdre]

I think you underestimate the restrictions that Israel has placed on Gaza for a long time.

and Egypt. singling out israel is a bit unfair.

 

[deirdre]

If they have made themselves unwanted by even their own allies, then it is far-fetched to claim they are being imprisoned.

when our criminals make themselves unwanted by society, we imprison them. That's why her terminology doesn't bother me so much.

I get that her angle in using those words is likely more to demonize Israel then my interpretation of the term 'imprisoned'.. but still i dont personally find the term imprisoned so far fetched.

 

[fizzBuzz]

If they have made themselves unwanted by even their own allies, then it is far-fetched to claim they are being imprisoned. It would be more accurate to say they have inadvertently or otherwise, imprisoned themselves. Yet, they still have access to the sea and could have built a port, a passenger terminal and rebuilt their airport in partnership with their allies, had they wished.

When it comes to Israel, I don't agree with the people who think they are just pure evil, or they control the U.S.'s foreign policy in the Middle East, or U.S. bends the knee to them, etc. But to minimize the oppression on the Gazan people is puzzling to me. For all intents and purposes, these people are "imprisoned". Israel has clearly oppressed these people for a long time and in a way that would not be remotely tolerated in any Western country today.

 

[JMartJr]

Why does the label matter? For all intents and purposes, what's the difference between it being a "war" or a "conflict" or an "operation"????

There are LEGAL differences, that matter. That YOU do not know this is not all that worrying, that the regime in Washington does not know this is a problem.

 

[fizzBuzz]

There are LEGAL differences, that matter. That YOU do not know this is not all that worrying, that the regime in Washington does not know this is a problem.

What are these legal differences that matter? Why do they matter? And what makes you think the current "regime" does not know this?

Obama carried out airstrikes against Libya in 2011. It lasted 7 months. Was this a "war"? The ongoing conflict was already labeled a "civil war", yet the Obama "regime" called it a "military action" and refused to call it a war. I'm fine with the Obama regime's labeling... because who gives a shit????? And did the Obama "regime" not know there are legal differences between "war" and "military action"?

 

[Mendel]

Obama carried out airstrikes against Libya in 2011. It lasted 7 months. Was this a "war"? The ongoing conflict was already labeled a "civil war", yet the Obama "regime" called it a "military action" and refused to call it a war.

No research, eh?

Article:

In light of ongoing serious human rights violations, the United Nations Security Council established a no-fly zone over Libya and authorized the member states of the UN to take all necessary measures to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack. Two days later, a coalition of states—including the United States, the United Kingdom, and France—began to carry out air strikes against military targets in Libya. By the end of March 2011, NATO had taken over the international military operation in Libya.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_domestic_reactions_to_the_2011_military_intervention_in_Libya

Article:

President Obama directed United States forces to "conduct[] a limited and well-defined mission in support of international efforts to protect civilians and prevent a humanitarian disaster"; American airstrikes accordingly were to be "limited in their nature, duration, and scope." Obama March 21, 2011 Report to Congress. As the President explained, "we are not going to use force to go beyond [this] well-defined goal."

Source: https://www.hoover.org/research/obama-administrations-original-legal-rationale-libya-intervention-still-valid

I invite you to show us
- Trump's letter to Congress
- UN authorization
- clear definition of mission goals
- NATO authority
I haven't seen any of that happening.

And members of both parties in Congress condemned the involvement nonetheless. Where are these Republicans today?

 

[fizzBuzz]

No research, eh?

Article:

In light of ongoing serious human rights violations, the United Nations Security Council established a no-fly zone over Libya and authorized the member states of the UN to take all necessary measures to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack. Two days later, a coalition of states—including the United States, the United Kingdom, and France—began to carry out air strikes against military targets in Libya. By the end of March 2011, NATO had taken over the international military operation in Libya.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_domestic_reactions_to_the_2011_military_intervention_in_Libya

Article:

President Obama directed United States forces to "conduct[] a limited and well-defined mission in support of international efforts to protect civilians and prevent a humanitarian disaster"; American airstrikes accordingly were to be "limited in their nature, duration, and scope." Obama March 21, 2011 Report to Congress. As the President explained, "we are not going to use force to go beyond [this] well-defined goal."

Source: https://www.hoover.org/research/obama-administrations-original-legal-rationale-libya-intervention-still-valid

I invite you to show us
- Trump's letter to Congress
- UN authorization
- clear definition of mission goals
- NATO authority
I haven't seen any of that happening.

And members of both parties in Congress condemned the involvement nonetheless. Where are these Republicans today?

Cool research. Care to address my point?

 

[Ann K]

Cool research. Care to address my point?

He did. You are not addressing his.

 

[Mendel]

Cool research. Care to address my point?

Generally, supporting a UN security council resolution is different from declaring war.

I invite you to read the second link I cited, it goes into the nuances of the legal discussion. Due to the differences I've listed, none of it applies to the present situation. You're comparing apples and oranges.

People call the current US government a "regime" because it appears to have subverted the legislative and the judicative (Congress and the Supreme Court) to break the law and the constitution unchallenged. That's another difference.

 

[fizzBuzz]

He did. You are not addressing his.

He did not. My point is it doesn't matter what the administration labels this thing - war, conflict, military action, etc. I do agree the administration's justification matters, but not the word they choose to call it. Some people are quibbling over Trump and company refusing to call it a war. Obama did the same thing in a very similar situation... who cares!? And there are other instances of this throughout US history. Congress hasn't declared "war" in 84 years. Some presidents since WWII have sought AUMFs (Authorizations for Use of Military Force) from Congress (both Bush's did this, for example). Neither Trump nor Obama sought these approvals. Mendel mentioned the UN and NATO... ok. They have nothing to do with the Obama admin refusing to call their "military action" a "war".

I don't understand this constant need to find any little thing to complain about the other side. It's nauseating.

 

[deirdre]

I invite you to show us
- Trump's letter to Congress

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/27725118-war-powers-report-iran/#document/p1

I invite you to show us
- UN authorization

noone cares about the UN. The real question is why did the UN do squat about Iran for 47 years?

I invite you to show us
- clear definition of mission goals

you think Obama's quote you gave is "clear definition of mission goals?"

I invite you to show us
- NATO authority

Noone cares about NATO. The real question is why did NATO do squat about Iran for 47 years?

Where are these Republicans today?

Taking out the terrorists.

Source: https://x.com/SenFettermanPA/status/2030263941574635832

 

[deirdre]

People call the current US government a "regime" because it appears to have subverted the legislative and the judicative (Congress and the Supreme Court) to break the law and the constitution unchallenged.

well that is just completely wrong. which is why attempts in congress to stop him 2 days ago failed in the house and the senate.

Article:

Accordingly, we conclude that President Obama could rely on his constitutional power to safeguard the national interest by directing the anticipated military operations in Libya—which were limited in their nature, scope, and duration—without prior congressional authorization. /s/ CAROLINE D. KRASS Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General

Source: https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/olc/opinions/2011/04/31/authority-military-use-in-libya.pdf

in fact the House reaffirmed it's feeling about iran.

Article:

The House did pass a separate nonbinding resolution, backed by GOP leaders, reaffirming that Iran remains the largest state sponsor of terrorism. That vote was 372-53, with all of the no votes coming from Democrats.

Source: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/republican-led-house-declines-constrain-trumps-war-iran-just-senate-rcna261909