Iranians online are disagreeing and really afraid of the US military coming in. Iran's economy continues to reach unspeakable lows, unemployment is sky high, and they just got done killing their own people last month for committing mass protests, again. Hate for the government and discontent is sky high. Soulcrushed and bankrupt army, so in and out like the first Iraq war would be possible. They are a power in the region, but that's because our "humanitarian interventions" have left all their neighbors in complete shambles. Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, etc.
It's a preposterous idea regardless, because the Iranian people are actually super pro-American and hate their government. Killing millions of them is an easy way to change that, and for what? So the Saudi regime can hobble along for another few decades and continue to fuck over their people too? It won't stop Hesbollah or anything else. It's fucking insane. These are the death throes of a politically desperate idiot. It will be war in an attempt to gain approval ratings in polling numbers. Americans shouldn't fucking die for that, and Persians shouldn't either.
I don't think this is true and I'm not sure where you got that from? Or maybe I just don't know what you mean by "pro-American" and am misinterpreting what you're saying. At any rate, the assassination of Soleimani was extremely unpopular there. The Iranian people don't associate him with government repression because he has pretty much nothing to do with domestic policy and most of them think of him as someone who defended them from ISIS and stood up to US imperialism in the region. He was also on a diplomatic mission for peace talks when he was killed and the turnout for his funeral was absolutely massive. The Iranian people are more likely to see this as a reason to rally behind their government in the time of a national crisis if war breaks out, not unlike what happened in the US after 9/11.
And just because people are afraid of the US military invading their country doesn't mean that the US would "win" the war. Regardless of the outcome, countless lives will be lost and people's homes are going to be destroyed. Why would anybody want that in the place where they and all of their friends live? I think Robby's original point was pretty fair. Even if you're a bloodthirsty war hawk, invading Iran would be a terrible idea.
I think there's a way this could pan out where civil war is the only thing that could prevent world war... like if Americans want to prove that they aren't a monolithic entity so that everyone doesn't have to go down with this ship... maybe it's time to demonstrate what that 2nd ammendment was for and remove a tyrant before he does some other extrajudicial loose cannon shit like launching a nuke...
Before I get into this, I just want to say that there's an excellent podcast called It Could Happen Here that goes over what a second American Civil War could look like, in great detail. It was put together by a conflict journalist who's been to Syria, Iraq, Ukraine, etc during times of civil war/unrest, and I think it's really well executed and well researched. It's...pretty dark at times though. There are a lot of valuable takeaways and I'd recommend it to anyone who's interested. With that said, here's my actual response to the idea that we need an armed civil conflict:
I don't really think that's how it would work out. A second American Civil War wouldn't look like the first one with two sides going against each other on the battlefield. And it wouldn't look like 20th century revolutions like in Russia or China with one group overthrowing the state and taking control of the entire region under a new government. It would probably look a lot more like the Syrian Civil War. There would be dozens of factions each taking hold with varying degrees of success in different regions. The majority of the fighting would probably be guerrilla warfare and it would probably be a war of attrition, which would starve many communities.
The centralized state might lose a lot of ground and the US might become balkanized, but it wouldn't simply be the "removal of a tyrant" even in the best case scenario. You're also pretty likely to see something like the rise of the Christian equivalent of ISIS. On the flip side with the retreat of the state you might also see that power vacuum filled in certain regions by more egalitarian, bottom-up leftist movements like the one happening in Jackson, Mississippi right now.
And while being armed would be useful (and for the record I don't buy into the common liberal talking point on guns about how armed civilian fighters wouldn't be able to hold their own against the US military...that's been shown to be demonstrably false in many conflicts around the globe and ignores the countless real-life examples of scrappy guerrilla militias, urban or otherwise, making massively funded militaries look like fools), what's far more important is being organized. Strong communities are the best defense in this (or any) kind of scenario. Knowing how to shoot a gun or use cheap drones or throw molotovs or whatever can be useful...but it'll be a lot more useful to fix community infrastructure, grow food, distribute resources, facilitate collective decision-making in the absence of the state or the usual local authorities, resolve day-to-day conflicts between people without escalating to violence, gathering/distributing information and communications, etc. Life doesn't stop happening when war breaks out, and the majority of the time spent in a civil war would not likely be spent in active armed conflict.
Either way the outcome would be millions of deaths, a massive refugee crisis, possible genocides depending on which groups take power in certain regions, and a whole slew of other absolutely terrible shit. That's not something I want. Even if you want a positive or revolutionary outcome, there are no well organized movements in the US that are poised to take advantage of the kind of collapse that would take place. If your eventual goal is the kind of revolutionary change that would solve the structural contradictions that gave us Trump in the first place, the vast majority of the work is done through, again, years and years of community organizing. Meeting people's needs is more important than flashy explosions or gun fights. It's the boring stuff that changes the world. So get out there and get to work buddy
Aside from that, if you want the American people to be able exert their will over a government that's exploiting and abusing them and innocent people abroad, I think a good example is what's happening in Chile right now. Through an unrelenting movement of direct action and bottom up organizing, the Chilean people have been able to get the government to rewrite its constitution to have input from civilians, workers, and social movements, and they aren't taking no for an answer or ceding an inch in their demands.
Where I do definitely agree with you is that if you want to stop the war machine, it'll take more than witty slogans on cardboard signs. You'll need to throw enough sand in the gears to make going to war unfeasible or too domestically costly to be profitable (and this can be done in nonviolent ways). The only thing they care about is their bottom line, so any successful anti-war movement needs to hit them where it hurts: their wallets.