Because Iran is so stable and isn’t a source of terror in the Middle East? I fear destabilization and terror is a way of life for that region sadly. But your point is valid: nearly every attempt at stabilization we done since WW2 has been unsuccessful. Why would now be different?
You're a missing a piece of my point. Iran would have been more stable (if not completely aligned with US interests) had the US not overthrown its democratically-elected government in 1952 and replaced it with the Shah. Our intervention MAKES IRAN MORE UNSTABLE AND DANGEROUS than otherwise
I am not missing that. I’m completely aware of that event. And surely you noticed I said every attempt since WW2. I think the overthrow of the democratic government in Iran was indeed one of those.
I also agree: we’d probably be completely aligned with them now if that hadn’t happened.
Making money is the whole point of all of it. Have to keep feeding the MIC. Certain people get filthy rich every single time the USA enters into these conflicts.
Comments
I also agree: we’d probably be completely aligned with them now if that hadn’t happened.
https://www.cnbc.com/video/2025/06/16/lockheed-martin-coo-we-are-probably-at-the-beginning-of-a-3-to-5-year-surge-in-defense-spending.html