Why is this article written like an op-ed, despite being Reuters?
I am not even necessarily disagreeing with it (I lean very anti-Iran and slightly geopolitically neoconservative) but the tone is not at all neutral and makes no mention of the possible downsides of troops staying in Iraq after decades.
Shouldn't there be some quotes from the US leadership? Normally this would be a chance to claim a military victory, a "mission accomplished".
Perhaps the US are trying not even to acknowledge it. A reputable newspaper would normally include "the Department of War was contacted for comment" but maybe that's not appropriate for Reuters.
I don't support the Iran War but I do support global US hegemony because I believe the other two possible candidates, China and Russia, would be worse. And I think retaliation against Iran for their massacre of protesters was morally warranted, even if that was only a pretext for the war by Trump rather than an actual moral consideration, and even if moral merit alone does not justify major intervention or war.
"Slightly geopolitically neoconservative" is the short way to describe that.
My apologies, I should’ve been clearer. I’m in no way criticising you nor do I think your post was egregious in any way or that you are personally at fault, it just so happens that your post “clicked” the label exhaustion and I “typed out loud”.
Thank you for taking the time to clarify your position.
I do not support the US's support for Israel. I also do not support Russia's support for Iran or China's support for North Korea.
Hopefully we get a 2029 president who completely alters the alliance with Israel and makes further close association contingent on many serious changes in how they handle Gaza, the West Bank, and prosecution of terrorists and war criminals.
US did not retaliated against Iran for massacre of protesters. One of US (multiple) plans was to just change the head, keep regime as is and rule Iran Venezuela style - where torturers got promoted.
Global Hegemony shouldn't exist. The Chinese are right (even if they are using this fact against the U.S.) that there shouldn't be a single world power police, and the very existence of such a thing feels like a dramatic, geopolitical failiure for everyone else.
Judging by what is newly happening in Venezuela, I think its unlikely USA will cede control over Iraq's oil/money as the mentality of the US state is unchanged. And USA is in debt/various individuals profiting personally.
Iran is best mates with the other Superpower country, China. And via China, Russia and the Brics and other China allies.
So Iran with these partners and the population size and natural resources, its reasonable to say it is a regional power. And not a 'new' one, but has been for some time.
One of Trump and allies main points right now is that Iran and allies are decimating regional bases and air capacities.
Look at the US allies in the region, they're all struggling to defend against Iran right now. The US is dangerously low on munitions to protect allies and much of the US's presence in the area has been bombed.
Given the geostrategic situation there, either the West or Iran meddles in Iraq. Full sovereignty is hard to achieve in such a neighbourhood unless you are one of the traditional powers (Iran, Turkey).
Looking at the Hormuz Strait, they'd better build a very good pipeline to the Mediterranean. Both the US and Iran seem to be very interested in controlling who sails through.
Well, in the large theme of things, its irrelevant. The region butchers itself regularly- with the us involved or without. If they spend a 100 years undisturbed doing local wars - it would have been no different.
No. Many in the Global South actually do believe that western superpowers create unrest in poor and developing countries to weaken them and exploit their resources which also include human resources.
While I don't believe that Western Europe caused wars in the Middle East for cheap labour / increased birthrate, I do see how big European corporations massively benefit from having a large influx of refugees. They do the jobs that natives don't want to do anymore. If you are looking for a garbage collector, a native will likely want 150% of minimum wage for that job. A recent refugee eager to start working has no problem doing the same job for minimum wage and zero benefits.
You are missing the big picture - blue collar workers can be easily attracted from anywhere in the world. War and unrest also causes the rich and the educated to seek opportunities elsewhere, and these are often the kind of people who also have the means to find opportunities abroad more easily. Getting a young, qualified and educated person as a refugee is huge bonus because without spending a dime on them you are getting a potentially productive tax payer and prospective citizen. And often these educated refugees are willing to do blue collar work too. You are right though that the middle-eastern conflicts aren't primarily about cheap labour but oil. Everything else is just the secondary benefit.
For Israel, oil from Kurdistan: The revival of the Kirkuk-Haifa pipeline fell through but Turkey stepped in to enable transport.
For both, the neutralization of a regional actor. The chaos that also weakened its neighbors. Eventually, the destruction of Syria. A base and flight path to attack Iran.
Exactly. What's happening today is more obvious than ever. The covers are blown, yet some people still have their heads in the sand. The epestein fiasco showed how deep and dirty things run.
Not getting themselves in over their heads expending loads of money and blood is somehow a bad thing now? Historys proven the doubt right outside some really niche circles.
I'm not sure if you're acting obtuse or you genuinely don't understand the difference between not doing something stupid versus extracting yourself from a stupid situation.
If I jump off a building and land on the pavement and break both of my legs this does not mean the person who is watching me from the street is somehow as foolish as me despite us both ending up in the same place.
One thing that people for some reason don't like to voice out loud: America won this way. Maybe it has become politically incorrect to even voice anything positive at all, like doomerism grasped all sides of society?
Baath party is destroyed and no longer exists, political and underlying ethnic groups that propped it up are deeply marginalised and sidelined, political regime in place in Iraq is exactly the one America wanted to have there, and it WORKS: they have regular competitive elections (in the strictest sense of it: before the elections, no one can predict results in advance) and a well-functioning civil society where people can advocate for, or protest against things without it devolving to tribalism (not "Shia vs Sunni" riots or similar). Iraq as it currently is, is created by America and stands firmly on its feet.
> a departure celebrated as a victory by Iran and its allies who now have deep influence in the country where 4,500 Americans died during more than two decades of war.
Kind of crazy to lead with this. Talking about the Americans victims (mostly military) and ignoring the local Iraqi victims (mostly civilians).
Usually when the US forces exit a theater it's a prelude to war, like the Afghanistan withdrawal was so that they couldn't be retaliated against. I caution people not to get too excited about this.
Iraq is a country of more than 40 million of inhabitants. They can take care of theirselves. Using an argument of some "sleeper cells", come on, it's silly. Is the US army only thing holding up their government? If yes then what do you expect? Either it falls the same way as in Afganistan, or it fights for itself.
> (the) departure (is) celebrated as a victory by Iran and its allies who now have deep influence in the country
Although the Iraq war was based on a lie and caused tremendous suffering, it did demonstrate the US's willingness and capability to handle a brash dictatorship. In this sense, at least at a macro level, it has tempered (as opposed to emboldened) other dictatorships like Iran and North Korea.
This seems like weird timing to this amateur seeing how they're at war with Iran and Iraq was recently used to stage attacks against Saudi oil infrastructure.
78 comments
[ 8.5 ms ] story [ 71.8 ms ] threadI am not even necessarily disagreeing with it (I lean very anti-Iran and slightly geopolitically neoconservative) but the tone is not at all neutral and makes no mention of the possible downsides of troops staying in Iraq after decades.
Perhaps the US are trying not even to acknowledge it. A reputable newspaper would normally include "the Department of War was contacted for comment" but maybe that's not appropriate for Reuters.
We have too many labels. That’s not good for a species which hates others based on different labels.
"Slightly geopolitically neoconservative" is the short way to describe that.
Thank you for taking the time to clarify your position.
Maybe each citizen of the world can have a vote. To make it fair, 1 US dollar of assets is one vote!
Hopefully we get a 2029 president who completely alters the alliance with Israel and makes further close association contingent on many serious changes in how they handle Gaza, the West Bank, and prosecution of terrorists and war criminals.
What are you on about in here.
I remember a speech at the UN, with a certain vial being held..
https://web.archive.org/web/20150218235400/https://2001-2009...
https://thecradle.co/articles/why-does-the-us-still-control-...
https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/us-control-venezuelan-oil-revenue-...
Classic Chappelle show skit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFERPDn3i0o
Is that what the Iranian state media is telling you?
So Iran with these partners and the population size and natural resources, its reasonable to say it is a regional power. And not a 'new' one, but has been for some time.
Look at the US allies in the region, they're all struggling to defend against Iran right now. The US is dangerously low on munitions to protect allies and much of the US's presence in the area has been bombed.
The US is losing this war.
The last 5 years will be 5 chapters in history books
I am curious what did the world gain from this?
For Israel, oil from Kurdistan: The revival of the Kirkuk-Haifa pipeline fell through but Turkey stepped in to enable transport.
For both, the neutralization of a regional actor. The chaos that also weakened its neighbors. Eventually, the destruction of Syria. A base and flight path to attack Iran.
Gonna collect em all.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/aug/26/fake-thinktank...
Come on, you can do better than this, Mossad.
> Come on, you can do better than this, Mossad.
Yeah, I'm sure that Mossad agents care what useful (?) idiots think on Hacker News.
> Yeah, I'm sure that Mossad agents care what useful (?) idiots think on Hacker News.
Only if they are not busy murderering citizens of other nations under false passports (https://www.historytoday.com/archive/history-matters/playing...),
exploding children with pagers (https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2024/09/exploding-pa...),
or kidnapping them for money in Denmark. (https://www.timesofisrael.com/german-heiress-accused-of-orde...)
Finest people on the planet, if we lived in 1933. Winter is coming soon. I hear Hugo Boss is making fine coats.
Who wants to freeze when committing crimes against humanity, eh?
If I jump off a building and land on the pavement and break both of my legs this does not mean the person who is watching me from the street is somehow as foolish as me despite us both ending up in the same place.
Baath party is destroyed and no longer exists, political and underlying ethnic groups that propped it up are deeply marginalised and sidelined, political regime in place in Iraq is exactly the one America wanted to have there, and it WORKS: they have regular competitive elections (in the strictest sense of it: before the elections, no one can predict results in advance) and a well-functioning civil society where people can advocate for, or protest against things without it devolving to tribalism (not "Shia vs Sunni" riots or similar). Iraq as it currently is, is created by America and stands firmly on its feet.
2025 elections: Briefing: Iran media call Iraq election result victory for 'Resistance' <https://monitoring.bbc.co.uk/product/b0004xgt>
Amnesty International Report on human rights in 2025 <https://www.amnesty.org/en/location/middle-east-and-north-af...>
Kind of crazy to lead with this. Talking about the Americans victims (mostly military) and ignoring the local Iraqi victims (mostly civilians).
Perhaps you will remember the Taguba report on Abu Ghraib, when a superior of his suggested he let it go because they were "only Iraqis".
You forgot to add that in 20 years time, America will go back to Iraq to make a film about how killing Iraqis made thier soldiers feel sad.
This is standard US procedure.
What war happened in Afghanistan since? Or Korea? Or Vietnam?
Welp, sounds like it wasn't going to happen.
Although the Iraq war was based on a lie and caused tremendous suffering, it did demonstrate the US's willingness and capability to handle a brash dictatorship. In this sense, at least at a macro level, it has tempered (as opposed to emboldened) other dictatorships like Iran and North Korea.