• 2 Posts
  • 6 Comments
Joined 5 months ago
cake
Cake day: January 30th, 2025

help-circle
  • Not necessarily, depends on what replaces it. If it’s replaced by a functional secular democracy then yeah that would be better for Iran, but thats probably the least likely scenario. Most likely it will either be replaced by:

    1. A new dictatorship after a civil war, tons of Iranians die and not much improvement is made to the quality of life in the end. Maybe the new dictatorship is more secular but it could also get rid of some of the democratic elements in the current regime.
    2. Iran turns into a factionalized failed state like Libya or Syria, kept in a perpetual civil war by greater powers using it as a playground to test their newest military equipment.

    2 is the scenario Israel wants, as whatever regime takes power will probably be anti-israel after this latest attack so itd be better for them if that regime doesnt have any power. Its also the most likely to happen if the ayatollah regime falls during this war as the mossad has shown they have a lot of capacity in iran to engineer this result. It’s also the worst scenario for the Iranian people.


  • Not_mikey@lemmy.dbzer0.comtoPolitical Memes@lemmy.worldLogic
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 days ago

    Yeah, and jews have lived peacefully on Palestine for a while prior to zionism, the destruction of the Jewish state doesn’t mean an end to jews living in Palestine.

    This is assuming that you think “destruction of israel” means destruction of the apartheid Israeli state, which is what I think they mean by it. Israel could also refer to all the jews in Palestine, in which case destruction would mean genocide, that is probably what most Israelis think they mean by it. Depends on how cynical / what side your on as to what you belive Israel refers to.

    I think that those in the occupied territories are more likely to want the latter as they’ve had more antisemitism bread into them by both there culture and repeated bombings by Israel and violence from settlers, but still a majority would want the former. Iran is further from the destruction caused and is more likely to view Israel how the US views Iran, run by a bad regime that once it’s toppled will stop it’s aggressive ways.


  • Not_mikey@lemmy.dbzer0.comtoPolitical Memes@lemmy.worldLogic
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    3 days ago

    Israel doesn’t want to destroy Iran

    Tell that to all the Israeli politicians calling for Tehran to burn, and bibi saying that they’re trying to kill the Supreme leader.

    Israel definitely wants to force some sort of regime change in Iran. Multiple Israeli politicians have posed with the pretender shah saying he’s coming back any day now, and they’ve tried to decapitate the top of the Islamic Republic multiple times hoping it will instigate some sort of revolution.


  • It may have helped bibi in the short term but the zionist project has lost all credibility for almost anyone under 40 who aren’t bought off by Israel.

    Once the Islamophobic older generations die off its going to be real hard for Israel to keep it’s western support. It’s just like South Africa, it took the generation who grew up in segregation to die off and loose all power in order for the west to drop support for them.

    If hamas didn’t do oct 7th then Israel could’ve kept up it’s quiet ethnic cleansing with more settlements, settlers violence, “mowing the grass” in gaza etc. Keep it out of western media and allow westerners to think Israel is a normal democracy just like them. Oct 7th made Israel go mask off and show there true goals, and most people are disgusted by those goals.


  • It’s not that borrowing money is free, zero interest rates means the government pays zero interest for its loans, not companies. It does put downward pressure on interest rates companies pay but they’re still going to have to pay a couple percent apy.

    The reason zero interest rates are good for tech is because it forces capital to seek more long-term and risky investments. If I have a lot of money and can get 6% apy from loaning it to the US government, the safest bet on the market, why would I invest in something else? If i can’t get any money from loaning to the government (zero interest rates), and i cant get much from loaning it to other institutions because of that downward pressure, then maybe I’ll buy some more risky tech stocks because it’s possible for that company to grow more then the 1-2% id get from just lending my money. Most of techs financing is done through selling stock, not loans.