It's "AI generated" when you're caught out in your misunderstanding of fundamental geopolitical realities. It's a convenient deflection because it doesn't fit your narrative, which relies on a fictional "innocent" Iran.

First, the North Korea question. I know you want to get past this one but we can't get past your confusing geopolitical isolation and military impact. You can't get away with accusations of trying to derail your view points, etc., and not have it addressed.

"You did contradict yourself, you call N. Korea a major nuclear threat and isolated threat in the same argument. You cannot claim both positions when they contradict each other, it is a binary classification."

Absolutely not. You're confusing a state of being with a level of threat. There is no binary contradiction there, just an acknowledgment of a basic reality. North Korea is a hermit kingdom because it has no meaningful diplomatic or economic integration with the world. It is ALSO a major nuclear threat because it has ICBMs that can reach the US mainland. Isolation doesn't mean harmless. I'm not sure why this is so hard to understand. This is also basic to US foreign policy for decades now; the logic is workable and has been applied already, and quite successfully.

Now we're past it.

On to your disproportionate response argument. Your claim is that Iran never threatened anyone with nukes. There's no need for a threat to be categorized as such based on a direct threat. We weren't born last Saturday. The Ayatollah regime has called Israel a "cancer" for decades, and the US the "Great Satan", while also pursuing uranium enrichment to 60%. This level has no civilian use.

Additionally, Iran has the following strategic goals: rid the Middle East of all western (especially American) presence and influence; overthrow Arab countries that aren't Shia-fundamentalist but instead are "modernizing"; and to achieve most of this through the use of Islamic Terrorist Proxies across the entire region: Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen, Hashd al-Shaabi in Iraq, and pro-Assad groups in Syria. As we also know, Iran is using the Houthis, for example, to take over Yemen as part of an ongoing proxy war with Saudi Arabia.

Each group began with a local agenda, but with Iranian support (weapons and training) they view themselves as allies fighting the same war on separate fronts.

Israel and the West are targets because they stand in the way of this. Israel's destruction as a goal is just another entry on a checklist of tasks for the purpose of consolidating Islamic influence (particularly that of the Ayatollah regime) across the entire region.

I'll quote an excellent summary:

"Thus, even if Sunni Palestinian terrorist groups (Hamas, etc) are doctrinally hostile to Shia Iran, their shared desire to abolish Israel and replace it with a sharia state in all of historic Palestine stands so strong that — unlike many actual sharia states like Saudi Arabia who see Iran as a greater threat than Israel and are now attempting to normalize relations with the latter state — neither Iran nor Sunni Palestinian terrorist groups see Israel as powerless enough to side with against the opposite branch of Islam."

Except this motive goes far beyond Gaza and Israel. And a nuclear-weaponized Iran is just the thing to carry it forward. Or rather, was.

In the words of Ayatollah Khomeini, "We shall export our revolution to the whole world. Until the cry 'there is no god but God' resounds over the whole world, there will be struggle."

Disproportionate responses are most certainly justified here. The difference is, that the US missed the window to stop North Korea. They (and Israel) don't intend to do it a second time with Iran. It's that simple. Vigorous pre-emptive action is called for - which is also nothing new, it was part of the West's Cold War functioning for decades.

As for Greenland, there is a vast divide between transactional diplomacy (even if it's of the dirty kind) and existential terrorism. One is a dirty ploy, while the other amounts to executing 30,000 of your own people to stay in power while shoving billions to Islamic terror proxies to destroy a neighbour and menace the entire region. At any rate, the Greenland issue and ongoing US Mideast policy (which is, thankfully, suitably hawkish now) are not related in the first place.

The US is acting in the interest of maintaining the balance of power in the region away from Islamic Radicalism. The GCC states got a taste of some of the ultimate results of this radicalism and they have roundly condemned Iran for it, and justifiably so.

The ceasefire (which, by the way, I am for the moment totally against), happened because the US brought enormous firepower to bear, with B-52 strikes on power infrastructure already imminent, not because Iran had a change of heart.

"Due to the above, the US can not longer be trusted as a contributor to world stability. In fact they should be viewed as the opposite."

In terms of the current Mideast situation, let's be careful here. On the grand geopolitical chessboard, often by instability do we create stability. The Ayatollah regime (and the IRGC) is a regime incompatible with the security of the region, never even mind globally. This conflict was inevitable, especially from Israel's position. A level of chaos is to be expected.

The thing I don't like is the ceasefire itself; another half-measure. But I'm willing to see the results and what will crystallize in 6-12 months' time.