… would never let Tony take out a hit on Iran

  • propter_hog [any, any]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    11 days ago

    She would have definitely continued to empower Israel to do it for her, though. We’d still be marching to war with Iran under her. And the humanitarian crisis in Palestine would still be happening. Nothing would fundamentally be different, except the people of america would be mostly asleep to it.

  • reaper_cushions [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    11 days ago

    I don’t think this particular scenario would have unfolded under a Harris presidency, but for a bit of a contradictory reason: Israel began striking Iran to throw a wrench into the renegotiation of the nuclear deal with the US (and the US government let it happen, these fucking rubes). Kamala, however, was far more hawkish on Iran and would never in her life entered these negotiations in the first place, thus not prompting this particular escalation to occur to begin with. Would Kamala have willingly and happily supported any strikes on Iran by Israel under any pretext, however flimsy? Absolutely. Whould this particular scenario have arisen? I don’t think so.