this post was submitted on 23 Jun 2025
53 points (98.2% liked)

politics

24320 readers
2790 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 4 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world 5 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

Barring the participation of larger military countries such as China and Russia, Iran (and the Middle East in general) does not have the capability to retaliate against the US in any militarily significant way outside of symbolic attacks on US bases in the area. Troops are never going to set foot on US soil. Planes are never going to reach US airspace. Missiles will be shot down over the water long before they get close to US territory. The US is in a unique position on the globe that makes any kind of military attack or invasion borderline impossible. I do not fear "WW3" or anything because Iran has no capability of taking action that could spark WW3 independently, or even in a coalition with regional allies.

What I do believe will happen will be terror attacks on the US mainland by suicide bombers and Iran sympathizers. It's the only possible way that Iran can directly attack the US in any meaningful way, as it would be again borderline impossible to stop a lone wolf attacker from landing on US soil, heading to Home Depot to buy some supplies, and pulling a Timothy McVeigh. And Iran isn't on a time schedule here. They can wait a month, 3 months, a year or more if they want, wait for our guard to be down, and launch a retaliatory terror attack in the middle of East Bumfuck, Idaho. Or smack dab in the middle of Chicago. Or at a baseball game. I am infinitely more afraid of them pulling something like that than I am of this turning into WW3.

And if Iran's top advisors have half a brain, they'll allow the US to continue thinking that today's attack on the base in Qatar is the end of it. The "symbolic gesture" of retaliation meant to save face. Let the US think that this is all they're going to do and then spend the next 6 months planning for the real attacks. Heck, play into Trump's ego and let him believe that Iran is too afraid of Trump to do anything else. He'd be dumb enough to fall for it.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 18 points 4 hours ago (2 children)

What's crazy about this whole thing, is how many people I see insenting this can't be WW3, solely because there have been multiple events happening that people said could lead to WW3...

Like, think of it as placing straw on the back of a camel.

Eventually you're going to get to the point where lots of people say another straw will break it. That's just reality, it can't hold an infinite amount of straw.

Now imagine how ridiculous you'd be for walking up when the camel can barely stand, and loudly and proudly telling everyone the camel's back will never break, because people have been saying it would happen for the past hour.

Rather than realizing that some people would guess early to be safe, because guessing late means your break the camels back and are shit out of luck.

trumps going to keep throwing straw till the camels a bloody heap, the man has never shown restraint in his life. It's a matter of when, not if.

So if it doesn't happen after this, it doesn't mean it'll never happen, just that were even closer than before.

[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 7 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

Except it’s not like either of the other two wars.

I’d agree with the comparison if, for example, the US attack on Iran immediately brought Russia to war with the US, which triggered Article 5, which got China involved. That sort of domino effect happened the last two times but doesn’t appear to be happening now.

Could it become WWIII? Maybe. But right now it still looks like a regional conflict, and a rather small one at that compared to the first two Iraq wars.

But I’m only 1/3 of the way through the latest Perun video so I reserve the right to change my mind.

[–] Stovetop@lemmy.world 2 points 3 hours ago

What's crazy about this whole thing, is how many people I see insenting this can't be WW3, solely because there have been multiple events happening that people said could lead to WW3...

This. It starts with a cascading series of small, often unrelated events that coalesce over time. They may not seem connected until viewed in retrospect. There might only be just a couple of belligerent nations pushing the boundary to see how much they can get away with at first, until eventually other nations decide to stop being bystanders and intercede in a now global conflict.

I'm not inclined to doomsay and predict that World War 3 is imminent, but I'm not going to rule out the possibility that people in the future might be talking about the conflicts between Russia and Ukraine or Israel/the US and Iran like they do about Germany annexing the Sudetenland and Japan invading China.

And with the threat of nuclear armageddon feeling closer than ever since the Cold War, I'm worried the takeaway from these events is just going to be that not having nuclear weapons is a mistake (Ukraine voluntarily surrendering theirs, Iran supposedly trying to develop some). The best way to not get invaded is to have nukes.