It’s trivial to go to a country and find people who are unhappy with the local government.
It is comparatively quite difficult to find people who are enthusiastically in favor of a foreign military providing air support in a hostile takeover of the capital.
US Media loves to conflate the former with the later as justification for the next round of imperial incursions.
























More recently it hasn’t happened. Iran’s had a much better track record in targeting and knocking out American military equipment and killing personal than Saddam’s Iraq (both in '91 and again in '03) or Mohammad Omar’s Afghanistan or Milosevic’s Serbia or Noriega’s Panama.
Hegseth is doing a far worse job than Powell or Rumsfeld. And that’s not merely because he’s a shit-ass military leader. Iran is simply a harder nut to crack, what with the huge ring of mountains around the border, it’s seasoned military and advanced industry, and the loose alliance Iran enjoys with neighboring Pakistan, Russia, and China.
What we’re seeing is more akin to the US intervention in Vietnam and Korea. The failures of our mechanized infantry and navy to combat an advanced guerrilla force with long range artillery at its back is right in line with what we’d seen during the Cold War.
The US plan for Iran was always based on leveraging a domestic insurgency to destabilize the national government. We were not in a position to take the country by force any more than we could have taken Cuba or Venezuela. That’s why we’ve steered clear of these countries in an outright shooting war and leaned on economic pressure points… up until 2025.