Why are American politicians so comfortable supporting an ethno-state even though the US is not supposed to support apartheid regimes? Why is the US administration now so willing to throw US allies (Japan, South Korea, NATO members) under the bus with a 1970s style energy crisis to save 1 country of 9 million from a war they single unilaterally started?

Finally, to answer the OP's question: * Israel is facing an existential threat; the US ending the war means de facto end to their state; * US - not allies as that requires mutual consent to wage war; see above text for actual real power relationship between Israel and the US

It would be interesting to see if this war will be a net negative for Israel. If Iran emerges with more financial resources out of the war you can bet they will fund Hamas and Hezbollah more than before the war.

Also during this one of their missiles hit a target 4000 kilometers away, much further than they were claiming they had. That's far enough to hit Europe if it had gone in the other direction.

To me it's looking like the stability was an illusion.

I can see people attributing this to the US as well after reading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9ta....

The Pax Americana is great, but given America was one of the countries to start this war, I don't know how much credit they can get for something they just ended.

1.5M dead Koreans

3M dead Vietnamese

500,000-1,000,000 dead or displaced Iraqis

Coups in Honduras, Chile, Haiti, Guatemala, Venezuela, Syria, Libya...

Pax Americana my ass. Tell that to the global south

Only if you take the 5 year old's definition of peaceful (ie. "not attacking")

Any reasonable moral position will of course mean that doing nothing, even if that means not attacking, is not necessarily a peaceful position. Nor is an attack necessarily not peaceful. For example, how Europe treated Ukraine before and during the war with Russia can easily be argued is not peaceful, it's helping the war criminal and it obviously did not lead to peace. The most generous interpretation you can make is that Europe was funding war. Only an idiot would call that a peaceful attitude. And for another example, what you wrote.

> ... then I'm not sure how long it will last before other nations follow suit.

Strange how you say the US is not peaceful, immediately followed by an argument why US's attack not only leads to peace, but the "non-attacking" nation must be defeated for peace. Which I'm sure we'll agree requires more violence. In fact your argument that Iran "defending itself" leads directly to a bigger war is accurate, I think.

Iran is basically fighting for a resumption of most parts, especially the bad parts, of colonialism (one definition of colonialism would be "taxing foreign nations" after all. I like that definition because a US audience will immediately realize why that leads to war)

That's the moral difficulty here: If the US wins, the west will be at peace with Iran. If Iran wins, war may very well be inevitable. In fact, war with a great many countries may be inevitable (Indonesia has already announced they want to tax the Malacca strait, and China has responded exactly the way you'd expect)

But yes at this point you have the ridiculous soundbite: "war is peace". The irony of that slogan, of course, is that it comes from 1984, as an example of "doublethink" which was George Orwell criticizing communism and totalitarianism. But the slogan is always used to defend totalitarian states, usually ones on the warpath.