Archived Post
this post was submitted on 22 Jun 2025
977 points (97.6% liked)
People Twitter
7453 readers
2293 users here now
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
- Mark NSFW content.
- No doxxing people.
- Must be a pic of the tweet or similar. No direct links to the tweet.
- No bullying or international politcs
- Be excellent to each other.
- Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major figure or a politician.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I see two outcomes:
or
There is no version of this that ends in removal, and even impeachment wouldn't be anything more than performative outrage.
The majority of sitting representatives have been waiting for an acceptable excuse to bomb Iran for decades. The only objection any of them have is doing so without manufacturing consent from voters first, but we've already seen how this plays out with Afghanistan. They'll drum up dubious evidence of WMD's and launch their entry, and then spend 20 years trying to 'get out' while securing Iran's material resources on the way.
The only difference this time is that Iran has almost 5x the population and 100x the GDP of Afghanistan in 2001, plus an actual organized military base with proper advanced weapons manufacturing. There's a reason we've waited this long to actually do this, and it isn't because we were busy doing other things. It's because this isn't a war we can win without pulling everyone else into it (or at the very least without isolating them from global trading partners).
It's not a morbid joke to call this a WWIII softlaunch.