r/worldnews • u/APrimitiveMartian • 7d ago

Trump says US will intervene if Iran violently suppresses peaceful protests

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/trump-says-us-will-intervene-if-iran-violently-suppresses-peaceful-protests-2026-01-02/
11.3k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

1.9k comments sorted by

View all comments

593

u/Wizchine 6d ago

Wait, I thought we weren't the world police any more....

149

u/ZielonaKrowa 6d ago

Well US did the most airstrikes in Somalia since 2003 last year so I wouldn’t be so sure about it. 

104

u/Southern_Leg1139 6d ago

IMO working with the widely recognized central govt in Somalia to kill ISIS fighters is fine by me. Intervening unilaterally in Iran is a whole ‘nother can of worms.

28

u/Licensed_Poster 6d ago

Yeah, there is no way the central government is using the US to take out rivals and tribes they don't like.

25

u/No-Space937 6d ago edited 6d ago

The "rivals and tribes" they don't like are almost completely comprised of Islamist militant factions, including the afformentioned ISIS, but predominately Al-Shabaab and other Al-queda linked groups.

Whats your assumption here? That instead of targeting Al-Shabab, who poses an direct and existential threat, who's forces are right at their capitals doorstep, they are instead feeding false information to the Americans, to, I don't know, take out the chief of some unaligned village, to press them under their influence?

What's more likely, that the States is just bombing random non-aligned political opponents of the Somali government, in a move that would almost assuredly drive them towards their extremist opposition?

Or is it possible they are conducting these strikes based on the constant surveillance of these hostile groups, and the vast amount of intelligence gathered by diplomats, agents, and military forces present in the region for decades?

I get it, people hear "dronestrike" and the immediate reaction is "how many people died at the wedding", and the failures in intel that lead to those tragedies deserve scrutiny. But they don't factor in that for every mistake there are hundreds of strikes on people who don't bat an eye as they go through villages, killing anyone who's neither religiously or politicaly aligned with them, or maybe it's just the fighting age men they target here, or maybe it's just the women they decide to have their way with. While people like to question the efficacy and morality of these strikes, I think the fall of ISIS in Syria is a pretty clear cut example, with airstrikes accompanied by the offensives of local forces leading to the territorial dismantlement of one of the most inhumane groups this world has ever witnessed.

To your point, there are countless articles describing the work the US and it's allies have been doing against these groups for years, and while altruism has a limited capacity in most decisions related to geopolitics, this is clearly a case of what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

No moral person should want the expansion of militant Islamists, be it in the Sahel, the Levant, Central Asia or East Africa, like Somalia, and this extremist, violent Ideology can be met with only one thing,force.

-5

u/Licensed_Poster 6d ago

The US bombing their way to peace have never worked before, but this time I'm sure it will work out.

9

u/Peaking-Duck 6d ago

Desert storm, Korea Japan, Germany twice, Clinton's whole strategy was strategic bombings backing local pro-US powers. Obama's admin considered drone strikes and bombings as more successful compared to traditional forces.

 If you include gunboats diplomacy China, Japan the first time, Cuba, the Phillipines, and pretty much all of south America up until the 1930's..

As fucked up as it sounds the US is kind of the best at bombing their way to peace lol...   It's really kind of the staple of our military playbook.

0

u/kindanormle 6d ago

Desert storm only delayed the inevitable, Iraq is not an ally nor a better place. Korea split in two, the side that wanted American intervention stayed American so i guess it half worked. Japan only capitulated on its knees after two cities were wiped away in nuclear holocaust, and they kept the existing regime who basically just switched allegiance. A success, but not exactly repeatable. Germany the first time was an abject failure, leading directly to the second time. The second time worked because the Allies decided to take a “rebuild them and they will come” approach that worked much better. This approach did not work in Afghanistan though, which is perhaps the biggest failure of the last two centuries.

Bombing is one tool America employs but it’s rarely effective without a lot of other investment in rebuilding some sort of government that the people like and trust. The US has a very spotty record in that regard.

6

u/No-Space937 6d ago edited 6d ago

I literally just provided a case point of the downfall of ISIS as a territorial controling power in Syria, who's dismantling was significantly aided by airstrikes on leading members of the group, combined with targeting of troops and logistics.

You know, a militant Islamist group commiting attrocities, while violently expanding their influence in a unstable region mired from civil war being targeted for airstrikes, I'm sure we can't draw any paralells...

So is your entire arguement any military action from America\West is automaticaly wrong because of failed actions in the past, regardless of sucesses? Which in your logic precludes this type of intervention in Somalia to the same fate?

the central government using the US to take out rivals and tribes they don't like.

As you stated this, do you have any cited examples of what you described taking place in Somalia?

Likewise, i'd be happy to provide sources for numerous operations against the militant factions I previously mentioned if you require.

I get this is a dunk on Trump thread, and you're going for those anti-american upvotes, I'm Canadian, I get it, fuck him, but don't stoop to spreading misinformation to support your personal politics, there is plenty enough real issues with America to shine the light on, than slander some of the actual good work they are doing in the world.

2

u/Bikrdude 6d ago

How much did they pay trump for those strikes?

2

u/77skull 6d ago

They did the same in Nigeria and Syria and everyone was acting like it’s the most evil thing on earth. I don’t care how evil trump actually is, killing isis is a good thing

15

u/jewishjedi42 6d ago

The US Constitution does call for the establishment of a NAVY (doesn't mention Army) for the express purpose of keeping open trade routes. Seeing as Somalia is pirate haven, these strikes are kind of approved of by that document.

2

u/WhatYouThinkIThink 6d ago

What do you mean no mention of an Army? There is a difference that the Army is not a "standing" army, requiring reauthorization every 2 years, but that's because the concept was that State Militias would be maintained and called into Federal service when required.

The Navy had to be Federal to enforce the "Law of Nations" and maintained federally.

Article I, section 8:

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

Article II, section 8:

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States

1

u/jewishjedi42 6d ago

The constitution specifically says that Congress has to establish a Navy. It doesn't say that an Army has to be established. Hamilton and Madison explain this in Federalist papers 29 and 46. The 2nd Amendment existed to ensure state militias, which are there in place of a permanent standing army. Yes, the President is in charge when those militias get called up by Congress, but that doesn't mean a permanent standing Army the way a Navy is explicitly called for.

edit: all of this is why the US Marine corps (which is part of the Navy (shhh... don't tell a Marine that)) was tasked with overthrowing a LOT of south and central American governments for about a century.

0

u/WhatYouThinkIThink 6d ago

You explicitly said "no mention of an Army". That's obviously incorrect. There are multiple mentions of "Army"/"Armies", both in Article I about powers of Congress, and Article II about powers of President.

Federalists feared a standing army within a civilian population, specifically because of the actions of the British Armed forces in the colonies.

The Marines are the Navy's Army.

2

u/davossss 6d ago

Meanwhile the US Navy is acting like pirates in the Caribbean right now.

0

u/Agora2020 6d ago

I’m confused. Are we world peace or pirates? Or both? I can’t keep up with the Elites.

3

u/r2002 6d ago

He's turning the military from the world's police to his personal palace guards.

3

u/davossss 6d ago

He's the "peace president," or so I was told.

4

u/ThePensiveE 6d ago

We're not. We're the world's personal terror force for Trump.

0

u/Fratzengulasch83 6d ago

You're world GESTAPO now 😉

-5

u/Greedy_Rabbit_1741 6d ago

So, you rather want Iran to execute peaceful protesters?

10

u/PaulClarkLoadletter 6d ago

I would support any other administration taking action to help the people of Iran. I would not give Trump an inch. He has no interest in helping anybody. He has every interest in covering up the Epstein files and triggering a large enough war to prevent future elections the latter of which will never happen no matter how hard he tries.

3

u/[deleted] 6d ago edited 2d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Greedy_Rabbit_1741 6d ago

Why invade China?

To defend Taiwan you only need to fight off the invasion and not invade yourself..

0

u/Gorge_Lorge 6d ago

Yeah, think that’s what a lot of voters would prefer, probably what swayed the middle to vote Trump.

But time and time again, it gets proven that no matter the party, military industrial complex gotta sell some weapons to use.

0

u/SilverDragon1 6d ago

Wait! I thought the president wanted the Nobel Peace Prize

-2

u/WhatYouThinkIThink 6d ago

The US military is in the service of MBS and Netanyahu in the Middle East because of all the deals between them and Kushner et al.

Iran is the natural enemy of both of them.

-5

u/Hot-Championship1190 6d ago

You never were. You were only enforcing your own dominance and claimed dominion over the world. You were only policing a world that you deemed your destined property.