this post was submitted on 29 Mar 2026
143 points (99.3% liked)
Chapotraphouse
14321 readers
623 users here now
Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.
No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer
Slop posts go in c/slop. Don't post low-hanging fruit here.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I do wonder if the US would've still attacked Iran if the democrats were in charge. It might've been more of a 2027/28 kind of conflict rather than early 2026, with more consent manufacturing, so the war would've been just as brutal and bloodthirsty, but all the libs would be proudly parroting talking points from their talking heads as to why murdering people in Iran indiscriminately is actually good for Iranian feminism or something.
Yes, exactly, I completely agree, because what's the alternative? Just rolling over and accepting the decline of the empire? Capital wants these wars. If Trump was acting against capital, he wouldn't be president right now. Democrats represent a slightly different faction of capital with large overlaps to the one Republicans represent. Slightly more finance, more global. Faced with a multifaceted crisis the Democrats too would have used the one main tool they have left and escalated militarily.
I know for sure Israel would keep getting billions bumped into it like when
They were uncritically believing the thousands of dead protestors in the months leading up to it.
That shit is so crazy to me. People just uncritically saying '30k dead!!!'. The US and Israel have carpet bombed the country for a month and there around 2k dead from it. I'm not trying to minimize the deaths but you think that would throw off some red flags.
Liberals shoehorn “Hamas-run health ministry” into every Palestinian death figure but when israel says Iran killed thirty trillion morbillion protestors it might as well be the word of god
And the person who made that claim was a fasion blogger with no connection to the region.
Most of them still do tbh. They just think that Trump "ruined" what would've been a perfect colour revolution by attacking.
Hot take but I don't think they would have. Democrats are more about wars that go under the radar and can be spun as 'humanitarian'. Most libs didn't even think about Libya.
Iran has always been the 'one day' war, meaning most administrations would talk about it but wouldn't dare touch that hornets nest.
Trump 2 represents a distinct shift in US policy. There are no voices in the administration that are tethered to reality.
You have to imagine the context though - which is presumably the Israelis saying "we are definitely going to topple the mullahs fyi". Maybe the Dems would have let Iran strike first and would currently be riding a wave of nationalist fervor?
dems are more enthusiastic about bleeding russia in ukraine. they might be smart enough not to commit so much to the "pivot to asia" until that was winding down and MIC production capacity was more available.
we probably wouldn't know the names of any of the islands i've been an expert on for two weeks.
my guess for the main target of a Harris whitehouse would be whoever escalated resistance against
, so maybe she'd be boots on the ground in yemen, or maybe just supporting the saudis in doing more genocide.
They might've made a more competent attempt at regime change
israel would have and the US would have been "forced" to back them, just like in Gaza